Captain's Quarters -

I hate to go down to grade school level, but why not? COuld be fun. I think I will call the Dems names also:

DEFEATOCRATS
DEMON-RATS
DHIMMICRATS

Those are my names.

Hillary is about as anti-American military as any person can be. Too many incidents to recount when she was first Lady but the one where she forbade the Marines to wear their uniforms in the White House is appaling and says everything you need to know.

Obama and Biden are such poltroons that they couldn’t even muster the courage to vote.

Telling that they couldn't even get half of the Senate democrats to vote yes. Few, if any will feel any repercussions for their vote and if they do, they will claim that they were tricked into voting 'nay'. Mrs. Clinton will claim that she was only voting against giving Mr. Bush the sole authority to condemn the ad because she felt that a commission should be created in order to determine, according to focus groups conducted in New Paltz, NYC and San Francisco, who should be given the authority, if warranted according to the focus groups and in-line with UN guidelines, to condemn the ad.

That'll leave a mark, Mitt.

be·trayed, be·tray·ing, be·trays

1. To give aid or information to an enemy of; commit treason against: betray one's country.

2. To be false or disloyal to: betrayed their cause; betray one's better nature.

3. To reveal against one's desire or will.

4. To lead astray.

Were we talking about the Democrat party or the Petraeus report?

I honestly forget.

Well said PWT. New Paltz used to be such a nice town. I remember back in '49....um 1849....

If John Kerry initially came out against Move-On's "Betray Us" ad, why did he vote against the amendment condemning it? He was against the ad before he was for it?

The Amendment was to commend 'every' man and woman serving in Iraq, including Gen Petraeus, and it stated so in the amendment. The democrats didn't vote against the Gen, they voted against every person in the military. They are one sorry bunch of aholes and should not only be ran out of congress, they should all be deported to Iran or Syria since that is who they support. Need any armed help to do it, just put out the word and 50 million + will show up to do the job, less than gentle handling required.

Hillary's slipping.

With the Hsu criminal prosecution, her bizarre gaffe about Darth Vader, and now her pledge of support to a hard-left hate site, can she survive?

To Jeff:

Of course she'll survive. Dan Rather believes her.

The Move-On ad was reckless and false. Yet, there is no evidence that the Move-On ad influenced anyone's views except to generate revulsion across the political spectrum. Sincere articulation of that revulsion was understandable. The prolonged effort to make condemnation of the ad a litmus test for loyalty and patriotism, however, is a cynical exercise that only republishes the initial libel while rendering political -- and thus trivializing -- the desire to honor those who serve. Those who serve do not need Senate resolutions about interest group ads. They need support in the form of adequate resources, wise guidance and heartfelt expressions of thanks. What a sad sideshow.

Everyone who voted NAY should disqualify themselves as a candidates for President, Vice President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense.

The cowards supporting MoveOn over the military are not fit to be Commander in Chief, nor should they lead other civilian oversight groups, engage in negotiations with other nations or groups that may require a commitment of the military, or direct the military establishment.

Why not give us a list of all the Republicans who voted against Barbara Boxer's resolution condemning attacks on all who have served honorably in the military including John Kerry and Max Cleland. I guess a guy who lost three limbs in Vietnam deserved to get called a traitor by the Right whereas General Petraeus is the new Jesus since he supports President Bush.

It would be nice if just a few of you were consistent in your attitudes.

Who cares about honor, patriotism, libel, honesty when we can all admire the infantile cleverness of Move On. Imagine. They not only rhymed their little saying but each line has three syllables and when spoken the last two syllables are the same in each line.

Petraeus

Betray Us

Wow. I'm surprised this ever came to a vote.

The only reason I can think of is that they expect the underlying legislation to be vetoed by Pres. Bush.

Reading the testimony, I can see that the long arm of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth still rankles the Democrats:

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, I might ask the Senator from Texas, there was a group from Texas that attacked Senator John Kerry and said he was undeserving of the commendations and decorations he received for his courage in fighting in Vietnam and raised questions about others who served in the military who were part of his swift boat operation. One would have to say, by any stretch, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were attacking the honor and integrity of one of our colleagues who served with honor in the Vietnam war.

I would like to ask the Senator from Texas if he is prepared to remain consistent and if he is also prepared to amend his amendment to repudiate the activities, actions, and statements of the Texas-based Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization with their unwarranted attacks on our colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, during the 2004 campaign.

Gads, these people are slime.

Max Cleland never got a Purple Heart for his injuries in Vietnam. They were essentially self-inflicted. Yes, he served, as a technician with the Army Security Angency, if memory serves, and was playing around with a live grenade when it went off. I give him kudos for serving. I have not lowered my standards for "hero" enough to include him in their ranks.

As for Kerry, you've got to be kidding!

As for Dave Petreaus...Congress voted OVERWHELMINGLY to send him out to Baghdad, and gave him a fourth star, with a clearly defined mission, also OVERWHELMINGLY approved by Congress...and when he performs his given mission at the behest of the nation he is a traitor?

What world do people you live in?

This is in the, Oh, Puh-leeze, department:

Ed says:
MoveOn has the right to free speech. Congress has the responsibility to defend the honor of the man they unanimously endorsed for the difficult task of bringing security to Iraq.
>

Voting against the amendment is now voting against America. Kick 'em out.

Ed says:
Almost half of the Democratic caucus would rather participate in a smear campaign against the commander than stand up to MoveOn. It's a pathetic, embarrassing, and ultimately revealing moment.
>

Um, Ed, I think they're declining to participate in a smear campaign. Looks to me, and I'm just skeptical, like you're participating in a smear campaign.

Meanwhile, the Senate also declines to make home-time commensurate with the extended deployments for the troops. It's a good thing the President announced that the surge is so successful that he'll be able to draw down to pre-surge levels after he runs out of troops. When do you think he'll ask for Congress for more troops? Why hasn't he already?

I'm sure that all of you were the first ones in line to denounce the ridiculous TV ads of the Swift Boat Vetrans in the 2004 elections too.

Actually, my bet is that all of you support our troops, unless it goes against your political agenda. If you hate MoveOn.org's ad (as I do) then I hope all of you right wing blowhards also denounced attacks against veteran liberals.

skeptical,

The senators are, on the face of things, participating in a smear campaign. The Captain definitely has it right. Read the amendment. Read the debate. Then tell me what axe these Senators are really grinding on Petraeus' back.

coldwarrior415 writes: Max Cleland never got a Purple Heart for his injuries in Vietnam. They were essentially self-inflicted. Yes, he served, as a technician with the Army Security Angency, if memory serves, and was playing around with a live grenade when it went off.
---------------

Memory doesn't serve you. The right wing smear machine ala Ann Coulter serves you in thinking that Cleland was "playing around." How about the real story from his commanding officer:

The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.

As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of "ownership" went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.

Maury Cralle'
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/02/con04074.html

For the record, I don't think the Move On ad was the right thing to do either, but certain people seem to feel that it is OK to besmirch people's military careers if they are Democrats.

We would know if the attack by the Swift Boat Vets was warranted if , as he said he would, Jon Karry released his records. W. did.

Come on Jon Karry what are you hiding?

to help out coldwarrior415 (not that he needs any) the target of Sen Chambliss ads were Cleland's votes for the Unions and forcing the Executive to allow Unions to organize the Dept of Homeland Security. The same rules that have destroyed public education would be forced to be implemented in the DHS. If Cleland didn't like the fact that his support for Unions trumped his support for American securtiy, tough. Does he get a pass politically because he had an accident in Viet Nam? Even if he was John McCain he should not get a pass for any political decision he made.

As for the Swifties, let John Kerry release his Navy records for the whole world to see as Pres Bush did and then defend the guy. When 90% of those there say one thing and 10% say another, gotta go with the 90% til other facts come in. What is Francois hiding? Arent you lefty's the tiny bit curious, the way you were over the Pres' TNG records? And Francois should be held accountable for his reprehensible, slanderous statements he made concerning his fellow Viet Nam vets. His testimony to Congress during the war should have been replayed over and over and thanks to the Swifty's it was. The nation owes them a debt of gratitude if anything.

To reiterate, Cleland or JFK were never called traitors. Gen Patreus was. What we are seeing now is an attempt by the left to destroy the military the way it did during Viet Nam. Thankfully it isnt working - so far.

Some of us have long memories around here for the leftist lies that keep popping up.

"Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them in summer school"
Buffy Summers

It's like 1968 all over again. The Democrats have a chance to dominate in both houses of Congress, but the extremists will have none of it. The extremists hate the Republicans, but the real hate is for their own leadership, who are not "Democrats" enough. The extremists are attacking their leadership, no, slaughtering their leadership is more like it. Like 1968, the extremists, defeatists, socialists are driving the nation to the Republicans.

And Harry Reid panders to them. As well he should. After all, the extremists bought the party, they own it. It must be a great rush to be a Republican ad man these days.

If the Republicans win in 2008, we have a great debt to pay to Moveon, DailyKos, and at least 25 Democrat Senators.

Hey Teresa The Gen. was assined to Iraq BY CONGRESS and when he does the job given him, some of people who sent him call him a liar. The fantasy Living Kerry was running for a PUBLIC OFFICE during a TIME OF WAR of course his military background came up. And he is still trying to hide his history.You will notice that he has still not released his records.You must have one of those University educations to be so good at critical thinking.

I should have realized that no one would admit any wrongdoing for questioning Kerry and Cleland's records, but how about John McCain?

I lived in SC when the Bush campaign started their little whisper campaign against McCain that he was some sort of Manchurian candidate and not quite sane after being tortured by the Vietnamese.

Give me you damn excuses for that one why don't you?

It's a particularly sad commentary on the Republican Party that they cannot bring themselves to support the constitution of the United States.

Lorrie, whose comment was posted at 2:02 would apparently like for us to "move on"

no teresa, memory doesnt serve you. Max Cleland was never awarded a purple heart for the incident that grievously wounded him. He was awarded a silver star for other meritorious action on a different date. No one questioned his duty record in Viet Nam, I know it was exemplary.

"Grenade Explosion Accident. In his own words,

On April 8, 1968, I volunteered for one last mission. The helicopter moved in low. The troops jumped out with M16 rifles in hand as we crouched low to the ground to avoid the helicopter blades. Then I saw the grenade. It was where the chopper had lifted off. It must be mine, I thought. Grenades had fallen off my web gear before. Shifting the M16 to my left hand and holding it behind me, I bent down to pick up the grenade. A blinding explosion threw me backwards."

Thats it, an unfortunate accident. And you are stone cold wrong, no one besmirched Cleland's military record and we dont know what to think of Kerry's do we?

Now some insanity is that the Republicans arent respecting the Constitution? You leftists are proving its always 4:20 somewhere. OK, directly from the Constitution,

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..." and Congress rights are,

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

There you have it, the President is the CinC and Congress has no power to tell him how to run the war. Looks like the unConstitutional power grab is by the Dems.

Great. Congress has now condemned the ad, which basically means nothing! Who cares! Its called free speech! The fact that Congress decided to waste a day condemning a stupid ad is the epitome of what is wrong with our country. They screw the constitution and the troops yesterday, but by God, at least today MoveOn now knows that they have been condemned by Congress. To what, or where, or how is anyone's guess.

Pass some $%#@%$#%*& bills already!!!

Actually, John F'n Kerry was called a traitor - but seeing as he personally "negotiated" with the Vietnamese communists in violation of US law, the term seems apt. In a previous era he would have faced charges for it.

Cleland made bad decisions in Congress and got called on for making said bad decisions - at which point he claimed attacking his record was the same as attacking his service in the military.

Petraeus was smeared for making a report that Bush's political opponents didn't want to hear. Moveon and their subservient Democrats should be ashamed of their conduct.

kingronjo --Cleland didn't get a purple heart, because he wasn't wounded by the enemy. It doesn't mean he did not save a lot of people's lives. As far attacking his record, let's do a two second google search:

Ann Coulter -- “If Cleland had dropped a grenade on himself at Fort Dix rather than in Vietnam, he would never have been a U.S. Senator in the first place. Maybe he’d be the best pharmacist in Atlanta,” “He didn't ‘give his limbs for his country,’ or leave them ‘on the battlefield,’” Coulter said. “There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight.”

Charming. I guess your blond heroine writing that in a nationally syndicated column doesn't count as "besmirching" his record.

And she was only one of many.

Bob

She doesn't understand the principle of shaming those who would perform unacceptable and despicable acts. In politics we have only our outrage and our vote. Glad to see that there are those who are willing to exersize at least the outrage. I hope the votes follow. Our country can not stnnd for long if it encourages this kind of behavior.

Actually, I'm amazed that I've wasted this much time on it. I read the amendment, I read excerpts from the debate, but not the whole thing, and it's clear that the amendment exists so that people like the Captain can deplore unpatriotic, anti-American blah blah of the Democrats. Lorrie put it best; this is a sideshow.

I don't think everyone deserves to be treated like a hero, as there are a tiny minority of people who serve in uniform disgracefully, and there are some whose service stands out, but I'm amazed, stunned, really, by people who profess patriotism and supporting our military, honoring the service of our troops, who work to shred the honor of the military service of people whose politics they disagree with. Including the service of Kerry, including the service of Cleland.

And kingronjo, some of us have long memories of the smears against patriotic Americans by people who claim a monopoly on patriotism, but demagogue and support demagoguery. The worst thing to happen to OUR military is the leadership they've had for the past six years. We'll all be paying for that for a generation.

When will the President ask Congress for more troops? For a stronger VA? For replacement parts so they're not pirating them from stateside training vehicles and materiel? Why hasn't he?

Why is anyone the least bit surprised at this cowardly act by people who are totally lacking in common decency?
This repugnant behavior has been a daily occurrence for years and will only get worse as the nation's culture continues to slide.
The blame cannot be completely put on the shoulders of worthless politicians. The American public has allowed this garbage to live and grow while they continue in their shameful lust for commercial comfort.

There were two amendments. The Boxer amendment

"To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization."

The Cornyn Amendment was limited only to current members
"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces"

The Boxer amendment was to expose the hypocracy of the Republicans when the ran the smear jobs on Max Cleland and John Kerry. There were some Republicans who condemned the smear jobs on Kerry and Cleland. However, the Republicans could not vote for the Boxer Amendment because it would have implicitly condemned Bush who did not denounce those smear jobs.

Frankly, I did not like the Move on ad or anybody that condemns the honorable service of military personnel who server their country. I didn't like it when the Bush people did it to McCain, when the Bush people did it to Kerry, and when the Chambliss slimeballs did it to Max.

If the Senators really "supported our troops" they would end this war and get them home. I know that might mean they would not get invited to the White House Christmas Party so we will continue to watch our young men and women die for another two years.

Max Cleland served honorably and well; it is of course tragic that he was injured in the line of duty and the country owes him a debt for that, as it does to the million-plus other wounded veterans from this country's wars.

That, however, does not necessarily extend to treating him with kid gloves when long years after he's taken off the uniform he puts himself in the political fray. We contest John McCain's immigration positions and his occasional statist bent, we condemn Vietnam hero Randy Cunningham's venality and appreciate that he's gotten what he deserved for it, and we await the day when John Murtha will find himself in similar straits for his.

But Gen Petraeus is a serving officer with command responsibilities in an active conflict. If a Senator feels that he is duplicitous or incompetent it's that Senator's responsibility to stand up and say so and press for the General's removal, not hide behind MoveOn.

We support the troups by bringing them home and making our world dramatically less safe. We support our troups by bringing them home and we watch as Iraq desentagrates into a sess pool.

What is so wrong about supporting our troups and winning the war on terrorism?

Interestingly enough I was listening to a radio interview with General Wesley Clark when a caller asked him if it bothered him that his candidate, Hillary, did not condemn the MoveOn ad. His answer was pure Clintonesque, and in effect was that we don't need to be discussing this anymore, but need to move on to more important issues. It doesn't matter whether it is taking campaign money from the Chinese, Whitewater shenannigans, or Monica...the answer for anything they do is, "let's not talk about it" and "let's move on".

So, why should we be surprised to hear the libs once again decrying that holding these scumbags at MoveOne.org accountablewould equate to the "politics of personal destruction" and whining that we should "move on".

Gosh, are there any freethinkers at all in the GOP?

Here are the opinions of a combat vet:
General Powell betrayed us.
General Miers betrayed us.
General Pace betrayed us.

General Petraeus promised our nation that the surge would allow room for the political arm in Iraq to move. The political arm didn't move.

So, what's the success of Petraeus's mission??
Mission Accomplished George W. Bush Style
(which is...NOT!)

Petraeus scored. He advanced the ball. And, then he reached his goal.

Hillary? She's still a candidate searching for ways to make believe her negatives are not there.

And, the Bonkeys? Well, they made a bet.

This summer, Assad also made a few bets.

And, there? The Israelis has patience. They even let the "goods" get delivered. Why? Because it wasn't a drug interdiction.

And, once delivered, the payments went out. How much? Probably to the tune of BILLIONS AND BILLIONS.

3 Days Later, when things went BOOM;

Oh, and the Al-Hamed "disappeared." But no one knows "how" ... or where. Or if it wasn't just a quick paint job; detailing. And, new, new flags?

If the north koreans, and the other nationality of sailors never get home, again. Would people believe they are happily ensounced on some desert island, enjoying the natives? There must have been a lot of loot.

As the Israelis waited.

And, sometimes, you just have to have patience.

Sure, today, the Code Pinkers are in over-drive with their "braying" about Petraeus. While they are the ones who are betraying us. Seems obvious, enough.

While Bush has never liked Maliki. Always liked the sunnis. But couldn't convince them to "join" the American efforts, until the disasterous run with the Al-Kay-Duh dudes had to run its course.

Similar stuff in Afghanistan, with the Taliban.

Needs patience to correct.

While Assad? Whatever blew up on July 23rd; and then with the further two blow ups on September 6th ... You might find that he's in trouble. Certainly the payments to the russians for CRAP, where the promise of "NO JAM" ... didn't quite hold up.

And, the losses in personnel; where only the top of syria's military were present when the scud was being loaded with chemicals, on a war head that went BOOM at the site ...

Doesn't come with a coronor's list of the dead.

But I'm not making this up.

Bush is a man, also, of great patience. And, even if he didn't like Olmert, to begin with; today he has RESPECT. (While Bibi just made an ass of himself, for a change.)

I think the final result for Irak will be a Federation. With 3 divisions. ANd, no center. The sunni's have to rebuild from scratch. They are doing that!

Baghdad? Has a lot of Shi'a who were looking for AMerican money and training. They were the last on the list. They'll probably be the weakest in the mix, ahead.

And, Maliki? How great is he among his followers if he just saw the amount of business LOST? You didn't know the Shi'a lost in the latest? Why do you think Maliki is mad? He was hoping to show his anger, at the Americans. And, I think, this has backfired.

But you'll need lots of patience to see what plays out.

While the diplomats "just dance."

Hey. What if there are fewer democraps inside state, for instance, with any authority? What about the pentagon.

While the loose canon, Webb, in the senate, just shot himself in the foot. Too bad so many GOP kiesters smell as bad as Hastert's.

kingronjo: "To reiterate, Cleland or JFK were never called traitors."

I assume JFK is John F. Kerry. If so, he was called a traitor, and for good reason. He accused the military of enormous atrocities in Vietnam. He lied about his service in Cambodia, and his purple hearts were very questionable. He associated himself with the worst of the traitors of his time, including the North Vietnamese during our negotiations to end the war. Unfortunately, he was only defeated in the presidential election. In Mass, he was likely elected because he was a traitor.

Teresa, I have no opinion of Cleland. He is/was a politician, he made political choices, and he lost a political campaign. The campaign ads had nothing to do with his service, but his record in Congress. Among other votes, he voted for an amendment to the Chemical Weapons Treaty that eliminated a ban on citizens of terrorist nations being on U.N. inspection teams in Iraq. As coldwarrior pointed out, he was a union man, in Georgia. Chamblis pointed these things out during the campaign. Losing limbs does not guarantee a lifelong position in Congress. Such is life in the fast lane.

Two other examples:
Murtha. No one is denying his service or criticizing his service. But his service does not exempt him from being called a hypocrit and traitor for his addiction to pork and questionable money, nor his slander of the Haditha Marines.

Cunningham: his honorable service doesn't give him a pass for corruption.

Just another interesting point about this vote to not support the General they confirmed 81-0 (19 Not voting) and sent to lead in the Iraqi combat theater - 23 of those 25 Democrats who voted against the resolution today did vote to confirm the General.

So, why did these 23 refuse to defend the General? Was it because they decided to 'kill' the messenger when the message wasn't what they wanted to hear? or was it because the resolution attacked their base and source of campaign funds - which is far more important to them than supporting a member of the Military they endorsed earlier this year?

If the Dems in Congress actually believed that Dave Petreaus was lying the easiest thing to do would be to remove him from duty and make him forfit his fourth star.

Since General Officer assignments and promotions are well within the perview of Congress, why have they not done so yet? Many serving military officers have had their careers ruined by just one or two members of Congress over the years, for a lot less than these Dems charge Petreaus with doing. Charge is perhaps the wrong word, should be "insinuate" since they don't have the stones to actually make charges. Lying to Congress is a felony.

These Dems are grasping at straws and hiding behind their most lucrative contributors, nothing less.

Bob: "Pass some $%#@%$#%*& bills already!!!"

Respectfully disagree. The very best thing we can say about the current congress is that they spend so much time on issues such as this one, instead of doing permanent damage to our economy, morals and lives by passing bills.

Tom,

Under Boxer's amendment, we would have to rewrite the history books to remark favorably upon Benedict Arnold,

If the good Senators feel so strong about the men you've indicated were maligned, then let them offer up specific amendments dealing with the issue.

Grouping everyone together just means no expression at all.

Personally, Kerry got what he deserved. He will never, ever be President -- his whole life's work down the toobs, done in by the guys he tried to do in during his earlier life.

Jan,

Wrong. The political arm is moving -- just not at the rate Americans are accustomed to seeing. Talk about putting your cultural onus on another culture...

And which combat vet is offering up the opinions? I'd like to know their rank, where and in which units they served, what honors they accrued during that service, whether they were discharged and under what color.... You see where I'm going.

"So, why should we be surprised to hear the libs once again decrying that holding these scumbags at MoveOne.org accountablewould equate to the "politics of personal destruction" and whining that we should "move on".

How can a vote to condemn an ad be considered "holding MoveOn accountable"? It is a complete waste of time. It does nothing, and it means nothing, except maybe to the good general who got his little feelings hurt.

The likes of Hillary Clinton, and Obama leading our Nation makes me want to check into a mental hospital. For after four years with Clinton or a young kid like Obama leading this Nation it will make all of us go crazy so I want to make sure I get the medical treatment I need. Trust me we will all need help if Clinton who has never done anything in her life by herself is elected.
And who is Obama?

I don't have any problems with people taking issue with military men who enter politics with regard to their voting record. I have a big issue with people tearing down their military records. And I don't approve of the Move-On ad.

But if the Republicans are so concerned about not tearing down military men, why did they all with the exception of Hagel, Stevens, and Specter vote against Barbara Boxer's resolution which stated:

"To reaffirm strong support for ALL the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of ANY individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization."

Please explain why that ammendment was so hateful to the Republicans? All the Democrats voted for it. Or do Republicans only care about some military people?

Scott, you are right. The US Congress would be better to pattern itself after the Texas Legislature. They only meet every other year and STILL manage to screw life up for us.

I'm always amused by those on the Left who get their backs up because their politicians' records were questioned.

One wonders where Teresa and company were when it was Sid Blumenthal who was questioning whether George HW Bush (Bush '41, who served in WWII) abandoned his crewmates to die in their plane?

To Bob from Bob - The "other Bob" said, "It is a complete waste of time. It does nothing, and it means nothing, except maybe to the good general who got his little feelings hurt."

So, you think it would just be best that we move on?

The problem the Democrats have with Gen. Petreaus is simple. He's just been to darn successful. It kind of undercuts their ability to run on the anti-war platform for 2008 and it could get worse.
Will "willful suspension of disbelief" become the "read my lips" of 2008?

Teresa,

Because Senator Boxer specifically referenced the 2002 advertising campaign against Max Cleland and the 2004 Swift Boat Vet campaign against John Kerry as other examples of similar 'hate' speech and advertising.

In 2004, Kerry chose to run on his record. The majority of those who served with him challenged him on his record- particularly using questionable injuries to acquire sufficient Purple Hearts to warrant an early departure from the combat zone before his tour of duty was complete. The record remains clear (Senator Kerry has yet to fully release his military records as he said he would prior to the election. Why not?) Boxer attempts to equate this to MoveOn's accusation against General Patraeus reporting what he saw and how he feels the situation is in Iraq.

In 2002, Cleland's position to put the interests of the unions supporting their employees jobs regardless of performance over the interests of national security were questioned by his opponent. The ad made no mention that Cleland's terrible injuries suffered in Vietnam were not the result of combat but a self-inflicted accident. Yet it has been morphed by the left as an attack on Cleland's patriotism since it questioned Cleland's commitment in 2002 to national security in a post 9/11/01 world by putting the interests of a union protecting its members first.

In the same vote, Senator Obama chose to not even cast a vote on this measure. The only thing worse than someone who makes the wrong decision is someone who can't make any decisions.
Of course the Democrats can't condem MoveOn...as MoveOn said, It's our Party now, we paid for it.

Sorry, but to many who have served and are serving in the military Kerry will always be a traitor! Have you ever read or watch his testimony about Vietnam? Sickening!

Cleland may have served honorable but his political decisions have been atrocious!

Kerry, the Hero of the Army of Genghis Khan wouldn't defend himself why should you? He allowed defamation action against the Swifties to lapse because he would have had to release his military record. He's been slurring the troops for 36 years. Why should he stop now?

To Bob, Yes I think the ad has been condemned enough. It is time to move on. It has nothing to do with your circular logic about Clinton's scandals either.

This country is facing serious problems right now, and I think it is a complete waste of time to condemn someone's right of free speech just because you may disagree with them. Personally, I think the ad was in poor taste, but I think its worse to keep harping on it, while essentially sitting around doing nothing.

Is anyone here even watching whats going on with the US Dollar? One stupid attack ad is the least of this country's worries. GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!

To Bob from Scott: You a Texas boy, too? My homes!

At least our founding (Texas) fathers had the wisdom to limit how often the leg could meet. If only Madison, Monroe, et al, would have been so wise.

Ann Coulter, who is at least equally as prominent as MoveOn, recently said that "Democrats hate the troops." That's me she's talking about, and by extension, the approx. 66% of the public who have doubts about our direction.

When can we expect George Bush, Boehner, et al to take time from their busy days to "disavow" her scurrilous attack?

What's that you say? There won't be any disavowal forthcoming? What's up with that?

I guess that, when your act is falling to pieces, any half-assed distraction is worth clinging to.

John Kerry's service in Vietnam was one of the few things I liked about him. However, it was the actions afterward that declared him to be a traitor. The private negotiation with enemy, the Winter Soldier sham investigation, etc. He may have been a glory hound or whatever in Vietnam, it did not matter. People forget that Benedict Arnold served the US with distinction until he betrayed them.

Cleland falls in the category with McCain. Their service does not grant them immunity from questions about their policies. Did someone actually call Cleland a traitor?

Calling a soldier a traitor is the ultimate insult. It is like saying that a doctor murders his patients or that a fireman is a murderous arsonist.

Oh come on unclesmrgol
I don't think anybody was thinking about Benedict Arnold when they vote on these amendments. What the Republican were trying to do was a political stunt (not the the Democrats aren't above stunts). They hoped no one would notice the Boxer amendment and they could get their little blog Monica's to go crazy on the Democrats. Which they apparently did.
The real issue is not about Patreus, I am sure a four star's ego will withstand a Moveon ad. Also Kerry would have be defeated without the Swiftboat Ads.
The problem is that it is a bad practice. When McCarthy attacked Marshall it hurt all of those who served in World War II. Max Cleland was the personification of a dedicated patriot yet the lowlife scum who attacked him attacked all Vietnam Veterans. Hundreds of people served honorably on Swiftboats during Vietnam. Yet the term Swiftboating now means a fraudulent, dishonest, attack on someone.
That is why I don't like Moveon or the Bush people engaging in this type of activity. On the plus side we saw very little of this activity Pre Bush and hopefully he will take this crap back with him. Ronald Reagan would have Saxby Chambliss's head on a platter and everybody knew it and these activities did not exits.

KellyJ,

Obama had no problem voting for Boxer's amendment to the resolution. He took the coward's way out on the resolution offered by Cornyn by refusing to vote for it because it only picked on MoveOn.org.

That moral fortitude is a clear sign of someone's suitability for the Office of President of the United States. /sarc

So I'm supposed to condem attacks against John Kerry's service when he condemed the very men he served with of "atrocities and war crimes". Okay. The Swifties served in vietnam. Moveon.org is not serving in Iraq. Now Mr. Kerry is second-guessing the Florida police officers who were there to protect his life. His motto appears to be "anything you can do, I can do better, eventhough I didn't do it at the time you were trying to do it however I was going to do it before I didn't do it because you already did it."

So let me get this straight: It's OK to launch a smear campaign against a General in the Army who is doing what he was commanded to do, because Republicans conducted a smear campaign against two veterans who were attempting to use their military experience to win public office? Say what? Is there a disconnect somewhere that prevents many posting on this blog (and Sen. Durbin, apparently) from recognizing the difference between elected office and appointed positions within the military? Or are the Democrats planning to nominate someone to run against Petraeus?

Tom,
The Boxer Amendment makes it sound like you couldn't condemn Benedict Arnold because at one time he served "honorably". People like you will never get it that the what infuriated Vietnam Veterans about Kerry was less about his medal hounding (although as a veteran NCO I would have nothing but contempt for an officer who put himself up for a medal) or bugging out from Vietnam with a technicality after getting the medals he needed for a future political career (the 3 Purple Hearts and home rule was designed to give unlucky draftees a break, not for officer volunteers), but very much his slanderous testimony before Congress and his treasonous meeting with the North Vietnamese while still a Naval Reserve Officer.

I'll tell you what. If anybody can get Kerry to answer the following question with a straight yes or no, I'll start cutting him some slack no matter what the answer:

"Sen. Kerry, at anytime in the past have you ever received discharge paperwork from the US Navy that was other than honorable, even if that discharge was later upgraded?"

It's safe to assume that Kerry will never be asked that question, let alone that he will answer it.

How much money has Bush gotten from Ann Coulter? Coulter is one person, MoveOn is political group backing and moving a majority of the Democratic Party.

"Democrats hate the troops." Didn't the MoveOn ad and the 25 votes against the amendment just show evidence of that statement?

Libs betraying our military?

Geez, who'd have ever imagined?

-- Traitor Kerry, Turban Durban, Mutha Murtha, and Lil boy Kucinich.

Bob, here in New Mexico our state legislature only meets for 30 days on even years and 60 days on odd years, and they too find a way to screw up our lives.

Scott R? Transplant from Georgia to Texas?

montysano, you are mixing apples and oranges, as so many seem to want to do.

Ann Coulter is a private citizen, exercising her 1st Amendment Rights as a commentator.

MoveOn is an organization that clearly is an advocacy organization that has poured gross amounts of money into Democrat campaign chests across the country, and makes no bones about telling the world about the Democrats "We bought them, we own them." And there are far two many Democrats who are more than willing to back MoveOn because that is where the money comes from.

Coulter does not speak for me, nor does she speak for most Americans. Sometimes she is on target, many many times she is out there on the far right side of Attilla the Hun.

But for you to try to equate what MoveOn is doing, and has done, and MoveOn's operational links to the Democrat Party, a matter of public record, and their links (and that of many Democrats) to the largesse of George Soros, with Coulter...there is NO comparison.

As for the 66%...I was polled recently and stated I did not like the direction the war was going. Guess I am part of the 66%...but when you look at the internals, I am no Democrat. I am, however, very disappointed by the prosecution of this war, the interference of Congress into operational military matters in the public forum, and the lack of an energized effort when the war started and to the present by the Administration to do what FDR or Lincoln did with an initially unpopular war, including both FDR and Lincoln acting swiftly on sedition, both suspending habeas corpus in many cases, FDR's use of censorship to protect America and so much more.

But, I am still part of that 66%. I am not satisfied with the progress of the war. We are spending too much time playing patty-cake because we are too afraid of offending anyone.

JB said:

So let me get this straight: It's OK to launch a smear campaign against a General in the Army who is doing what he was commanded to do, because Republicans conducted a smear campaign against two veterans who were attempting to use their military experience to win public office?

Let's come at it another way: since Coulter, Hannity, and all your other little echo chamber nasties scarcely let a day go by without calling me a traitor for doubting George Bush, is it OK to call a 4 star general a name?

Why, yes.......... yes it is.

I'm proud to have donated to the Swift Boaters! Would do it again!

SSG Fuzzy:

MoveOn is political group backing and moving a majority of the Democratic Party.

Majority? Please put down the hash pipe.

And to all who are trying to claim that MoveOn's unfortunate speech can't be compared to Coulter et al's unfortunate speech: sorry, I don't buy it. You can't scurry away from Coulter when it's convenient.

montysano, why you doubting Bush? Are you one of those who think Bush hired wetbacks disguised as Arabs to fly those planes into the WTC?

Let me see if I've got this right:

As far as democrats are concerned, it's perfectly OK to call GEN Petraeus a liar because Ann Coulter said mean things about Max Cleland, and because the Swift Boat Vets said mean things about Jon Kary.

Got it.

BTW, I wonder I Babsy Boxer would include the Swifties in HER amendment? Or George Bush, for that matter?

Oh, wow, Mitt is grandstanding on this one too. Hewitt is touting his letter protesting Ahmadinejad's visit to Ground Zero. Way to go Mitt! Its going to be a long election season.

As far as democrats are concerned, it's perfectly OK to call GEN Petraeus a liar because Ann Coulter said mean things about Max Cleland, and because the Swift Boat Vets said mean things about Jon Kary.

Actually, no; none of it is OK. Our political discourse has become debased and worthless. Unfortunately, it's the goose and gander thing.

What amazes me is that Amanidikwad is amazed that we don't want his sorry terrorist ass polluting the WTC site.

It is beyond my comprehension that the Senate could not pass a bill requiring adequate rest for our soldiers between deployments but could pass a bill condeming an advocay organization for exercising its constitutional rights. Petreus did betray us by participating in dog and pony show of the September "report." Is anyone surprised that nothing has or will change as a result of his testimony? This war will not end until GWB is out of office and this faux outrage over an ad in a newspaper will only help guarantee that he is replaced by a Democrat. I post the following below, I wish I wrote it but it was written by someone else. It sums up my feeling very closely:

President & war are deeply unpopular
2)President appts General Petreaus to be the front man for this unpopular war
3)Petreaus shows up for a Washington dog and pony show, where he argues in favor of essentially status quo maintenance of said deeply unpopular policy
4)War policy remains deeply unpopular with solid majority of Americans
5)MoveOn attacks him for being the prime advocate for a loathed policy – MoveOn is in effect articulating the views of ~>60% of the population
6)GOP vocally condemns MoveOn – who is at this point articulating the opinions of a sizeable majority of the American people, while taking actions intended to prolong said deeply unpopular war

How can this possibly make any sense? Are they trying to get slaughtered next year?

Montysano,

You are misrepresenting the Chambliss ad campaign against Cleland. The campaign specifically questioned Cleland's commitment, post 9/11/01 to national security because of his vote and position to place the interests of unions and protecting the jobs of union members regardless of performance against the overriding need to increase national security and if needed dismiss from the government's employ those who could not fulfill the performance requirements of their positions.

The history revisionists call this effort to highlight votes that place union interests ahead of national security as 'questioning his military experience'. It's not the case.

As for Kerry - once he made his experience a center to his campaign ('Reporting for duty'), then his record in Vietnam, his record with Winter Soldier and work around his anti-Vietnam efforts also became fair game.

If Moveon wants to defame a active duty / serving member of the military in a combat theater - simply because his report doesn't reflect what they want to hear and will damage their cause politically - then they need to take the heat when people don't equate that position to 'supporting the troops'.

To those of you on the left who want us to "move on"... it ain't gonna happen. We are going to beat the libs like a drum with this scurrilous ad, and likewise those who refused to disavow it. Hear me? Like a drum! Boom! Boom! Boom!

As far as the blonde bombthrower, Ann never claimed to own the Republican party. She doesn't raise any substantial amount of money for the Republican party. Apples and oranges, dears. As for her comments that "Democrats hate the troops"... well? Why won't you just admit that you hate the military? You know you do, just 'fess up. Confession is good for the soul.

no no no carol h... as was pointed out previously, 60% of the American people are not happy with this war. That took a rocket scientist to figure out! I love the way polling questions are asked that beg for a conclusion aligning with the questioners. I don't like this war. I think we have, for too long, allowed our troops to be treated like pinatas...walking the streets and not allowed to retaliate vociferously when attacked. My son just returned from Afghanistan and I'm so glad to see him home. I wish he and his troops had been allowed to kick ass and take names as we used to do when we fought a war. But, while I'm among the 60% who "don't like this war", it is for a totally different reason from the crybaby libs. I despised the draft card burning hippies in the 60s and 70s and my opinion is exactly the same about the traitorous MoveOn.org crowd.

Teresa,

You know...I'm definitely starting to wonder if there are two different people using your screen name on these CQ posts. The last couple of days the "Conservative to the gills" person has been commenting and then today the "bleeding heart Liberal" is back again. I, personally, have no problem with liberal opinions on this site, it adds to the debate but the inconsistency is about enough to drive me up a tree! LOL

By the way, on a serious note, your first comment on this thread today had you using a reference to One that many of us revere as our personal Savior and although this is a free country and a blog afforded us access and input by Capt. Ed, I just wanted you to know that I resent that reference in the way it was used and that to me, it was extremely tacky.

No BS, the Democratic Party is no longer liberal (ie, open-minded, open-armed, understanding, etc). It's been bought by MoveOn and groups that seek American capitulation and/or submission to any nation that whines and complains about our nation.

Disgusting

"Petreus did betray us by participating in dog and pony show of the September "report.""

Put simply, you sicken me, and I firmly believe General Petraeus has earned our respect. How brilliant one must be to advocate listening to professional lawyer/politicians who are openly and freely demonstrating that their comments and positions go to the highest bidder INSTEAD of listening to a man for whom duty, honor, and country are the real deal. The choice is simple: believe professional, trained, experienced, veteran lawyer politicians who are live in a world of spin and lies...or believe a man who is fighting for our flag. Yeah, Democrats are honest, but a general is a liar. Anyone who believes that probably believes "gullible" isn't in the 2007 Websters Dictionary.

Another thing, how are we going to get patriotic men and women to continue to volunteer for or reenlist in the military if we have a commander-in-chief who cares more about MoveOn.org than she does about them? Who's going to want to fight and risk dying for Hillary? Especially if you figure your sacrifice will be thrown away like Bill Clinton did to those men in Mogadishu.

The Republicans need to have the courage to hammer this issue relentlessly this year and next. They need to chain Hillary so tightly to MoveOn that hopefully the people can toss both of them over the side into the river. This needs to be done now with no let up so that Hillary will find it impossible to tack to the right dissing MoveON with a "Sister Souljah" moment after she sews up the nomination.

As far as the blonde bombthrower.... comments that "Democrats hate the troops"... well? Why won't you just admit that you hate the military? You know you do, just 'fess up. Confession is good for the soul.

I love it when my arguments are made for me; thx for that.

@Athos: I never mentioned Cleland.

Teresa, is your last name Heinz Kerry? Why are you defending this clown?

The main difference between the two cases is that John Kerry was criticized by fellow veterans who served with him. Gen. Patraeus was condemned by a far-left political activist group who does not even know the man. Move-On is totally agenda driven. Had Patraeus testified that things were not going well, Move-On would have published an apology the next day and called him an American Hero.

If the Republicans would have voted for the Boxer Amendment and condemn the Swift Boaters, they would effectively be calling a whole different group of Vietnam vets (the Swift Boaters) liars and anti-American. There is no double standard here.

As for Hillary, of course she voted against this Amendment. She clearly cares more about her war chest than the efforts of our military or the war on terror. If her becoming President isn't enough to scare the hell out of you, just forecast a possible Cabinet:

Sean Penn - Secretary of State
Cindy Sheehan - Secretary of Defense
George Soros - Secretary of the Treasury
Al Gore - Secretary of Energy

O'Reilly had Newt on last night and Newt repeated his gloomy prediction. I totally agree with the reasoning behind Newt's prediction however putting numbers on an outcome 14 months away is a bit theoretical.

Still, O'Reilly was quite skeptical and pointed to this ad and its consequences as his main evidence. What does everyone think? Will this ad really damage the Dems or just cause a minor problem?

"Will this ad really damage the Dems or just cause a minor problem?"

The answer to that is whether we listen to the libs to just "move on"

"Petreus did betray us by participating in dog and pony show of the September "report.""

Put simply, you sicken me, and I firmly believe General Petraeus has earned our respect.

This is a White House to whom nothing, absolutely nothing, is beyond being played for political gain. Yet I'm supposed to suspend disbelief and give Petraeus a free pass? Sorry: been there, done that, been bent over too many times.

Honestly, I cannot help but wonder how in the world any of these people will become Commander-in-Chief and have any generals that will serve a day longer than it takes to retire.

If she were my CIC, I would vomit hard, then retire so I would not have to deal with her.

Max Cleland was on a beer run wasn't he?

"Petreus did betray us by participating in dog and pony show of the September "report."

Put simply, you sicken me, and I firmly believe General Petraeus has earned our respect.

This is a White House to whom nothing, absolutely nothing, is beyond being played for political gain. Yet I'm supposed to suspend disbelief and give Petraeus a free pass? Sorry: been there, done that, been bent over too many times.

Sorry for the double comment, but I muffed the HTML.

the Senate passes a resolution 72-25 condemning the MoveOn add. Hooray! They can’t slow down the war, they can’t ensure troops have sufficient rest between assignments, they can’t restore Habeas Corpus, they can’t pass any sort of amendment to even try to dissuade the administration from starting a new war with Iran (we’ll just have to depend on the administration’s good sense). But at least they can do what’s important! This should be good for taking potshots at the Democratic canditates for the Presidency all the way up to the election.

We are going to beat the libs like a drum with this scurrilous ad, and likewise those who refused to disavow it. Hear me? Like a drum! Boom! Boom! Boom!

Bang away, but I'll predict: wait two weeks and it'll be stale, forgotten news. Remember, it's all about ratings.

This is just like 1952 when Joe McCarthy called George Marshall a traitor and Eisenhower refused to condemn McCarthy because Ike was afraid it would cost him the election.

Yes, Bush appointed Petreaus BUT Congress had to approve the assignment, which they did, and stipulated his marching orders in detail. If they didn't want him to go to Baghdad, why did they send him out there?

Are you saying the majority of Americans agree [per your defense of MoveOn] that Dave Petreaus betrayed us? There is no evidence of that, none at all.

This war will not end when G.W. Bush is out of office.

Sure, we may declare "victory" if Hillary or other Dem wins the election, or we may just say we gotta go now, and call the whole thing off.

Those who oppose us in Iraq, in Waziristan, on the Horn of Africa, in Iran and elsewhere certainly aren't going to suddenly stop their plans and assaults on us, something they have been doing for several decades. If we turn tail and run, as in Somalia, according to OBL's own writings and those of other prominent jihadists, they are going to believe once again, and have the evidence to prove it, that we are an easy inviting target, all of us. Bloody our nose and we run home to Mommy.

We hold a beachhead, hard won, and expensive to maintain, metaphorically similar to Normandy. Normandy did not signal the end of the war, it only signalled the beginning of the end to that war, in a similar manner to Guadalcanal or Inchon. If we can't hold the beachhead, and drive on beyond it successfully, we lose. Iraq well be our own Gallipoli.

As for passing a law that would insure adequate rest in between deployments, why has Congress not seriously addressed the size and component parts of our present military forces? We are at a historic low point in military manpower (a total of 1.5 million men and women in uniform, active, Reserve and National Guard) for a population of 300,000,000. If one extrapolates the numbers, one finds that a mere .5% of the population are in uniform, and less than 5% of the population is directly invested in those individual men and women and for that matter in this war. All of us will bear the brunt of failure. But, almost all of the population continues life day to day as if there were no war. If Congress were really interested in "down time" for the troops, they'd get busy and allow the uniformed services to expand according to the evolving military doctrine and pay for it unhinderd. But they don't and won't.

At no time in the past 100 years have such a small percentage of the population been directly involved in a war, or in or with the military.

Life in America goes on. We annually spend on recreational drugs, the entertainment industry and creature comforts such as I-phones, Escalades and big screen TV's and the like than has been spent for the last decade on the military or the prosecution of this war. Seems we are trying to do this on the cheap. Cheap in our words of "support" for our troops, as well, most of which ring hollow in so many quarters, like those who mouth "I support the troops but do not support the war." Where is the sacrifice of the population in all of this? Hard to find, anywhere, save for those service members and their families. The rest of the country? Who cares, they are talking about O.J. on TV, gotta run. Or I gotta vote for the next American Idol. Or there's a sale at Wal-Mart.

Where's the sacrifice?

The Senate confirmed Alberto Gonzales, as well.

How'd that work out for you?

I'm counting on the American people to exercise sound judgment when it comes to voting for President in 2008. This is especially true if Mrs. Bill Clinton is the democrat nominee. Having served as a Marine in Vietnam, it boils my blood to think this woman wouldn't let Marine's wear their uniforms in the White House. Doesn't surprise me she has shown her true colors by voting nah on the senate amendment denouncing the scandalous move-on NYTimes (slimes) ad!

He's no longer A.G. Question on Gonzalez is moot.

It amazes me to watch all of this going on. I came to this country 33 years ago after having left all behind in Idi Amin's Uganda. Seeing Americans take everything that they have for granted really emphasizes how rich, fat and stupid we have become. The things that are common amongst us far outweigh our differences, but you have to value them. It seems that everyone is willing to make political hay of any situation that comes up. General Petreaus should be given no more or less slack than any other player in this tragedy. As Ronald Reagan said about negotiating with the USSR - "Trust but verify." Petreaus obviously had his spin - otherwise he would have mentioned that US casualties have gone up this year. Only the politicians could have got him to leave this out. As a military commander wouldn't you want to comment on the status of your troops. Iraq is a Pandora's box for us - if only we could go back and not open it.

To our conservative friends who supported this resolution:

Since when did criticizing a single individual General who is offering his opinion to Congress become not supporting the troops?

Do you support all of Gen. Wesley Clark's opinions?

Do you support all of Gen. Anthony Zinni's opinions?

Do you support all of Gen. William Odom's opinions?

Did you support Gen. John Abizaid the other day when he said a nuclear Iran is acceptable and something we can deal with?

No? Well then, nice support for the troops there, folks.

See how ridiculous that argument is? It's just another strawman attack poisoning American political discourse.

Sashal said, "Do you support all of Gen. Wesley Clark's opinions?Gen. Anthony Zinni's opinions?
Gen. William Odom's opinions?...etc"

IF we disagreed, I would ask you...did we say they had betrayed their country. Remarkable difference, Sashal

Congress has the responsibility to defend the honor of the man they unanimously endorsed for the difficult task of bringing security to Iraq.

i'm sure all would appreciate it if you can point out where in the Constitution where that responsibility is described.

thanks in advance.

Specific points:

It is beyond my comprehension that the Senate could not pass a bill requiring adequate rest for our soldiers between deployments ...

Does the Senate pass bill regulating doses of penicillin? The amount of rest needed is a matter best managed by experts in the area, not by the blunt hand of Congress.

Petreus did betray us by participating in dog and pony show of the September "report."

It agrees with what independent reporters (Totten, Yon) say, as well as what milbloggers (Teflon Don of AcutePolitics and his CO, BadgerSix) have said. These are not answered by the alternating silence and unsupported statements common in the MSM, which gives me more confidence that it is much more than a "dog and pony show."

More generally:

The big question, I think, is whether this can and will be used to hold the Democratic candidates to account for their behavior. Will this be a Willie Horton Moment?

Has is occurred to you that some didn't vote for the amendment because they think it's a waste of time?

Only today's Republican Party could show more contempt for a newspaper ad than for Americans dying in a failed, pointless war built on a mountain of lies and deception.

And how many times did you call John Kerry a liar?

When McCarthy was reported calling Marshall a traitor it was slander. Marshall chose not to sue. When MoveOn labeled Petraeus a traitor it was libel, since they decided to pay )at a severely discounted rate) to have the slur printed in a national newspaper. So far at least Petraeus has not sued. I would have--he has a strong case, and a jury might just award him enough in damages not to put MoveOn out of business (they are, after all, funded by a foreign billionaire) but to severely impact the profits, such as they nowadays are, of the New York Times.

As for the Democrats: this was quite simply a litmus test of how beholden the 25 defenders are to MoveOn. Plot a graph, and you will see a clear correlation between the amount each senator has received from that organization and the way he or she voted today. Look on the bright side; at least Hillary Clinton is an 'honest politician'--since she stayed bought!

did we say they had betrayed their country

on Clark, yes.

Zinni, well y'all chose to go with anti-Semite instead of treason. nice change-up.

Do I support Wes Clark? A private [and vbery political, tried to get the Dem nomination a few years ago, too.] He is out of uniform, retired. Had some issue with him when he was CG of the 101st and allowed active duty U.S. service members go along as "observers" at Waco. Something about his ignoring "posse comitatus." Also had a problem with him when he met with Milosevic and Radko Mladic while a war was going on, even had his picture taken with Milosivic, where they were raising glasses to each other and were wearing each other's hats, smiling like it was frat night at Hooter's, while he was Commander of NATO.

General Zinni hasn't crossed the line at all, actually. Private citizen. He had the decency to retire from from the Army after his stint as Commander CENTCOM before he started his critique of the war.

General Odom? Now a private citizen as well. Back in the day, was for most of his career a Soviet specialist, Met him and briefed him when he was Army ACSI back in the '80's, dealt with his office when he was DIRNSA. He was one of many of the Soviet specialists who were amazed that the USSR and the Warsaw Pact disolved without a shot bering fired. It ran counter to the paradigm. As a Soviet and Warsaw Pact ingrained specialist his commentary that Iraq has no chance of becoming democratic, to this observer, is short sighted. But can he speak out? Sure. He is a private citizen.

John Abizaid? A good officer, a good general, a private citizen. Highest ranking Arab-American in our history, too. As to his stating that we can live with a nuclear Iran, ""Iran is not a suicide nation...they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon....the Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability." These were among other comments he stated as part of his argument. Only a misinformed and undereducated press would have a field day trying to use this sort of commentary as a club against the Bush Administration. Again, a private citizen.

Dave Petreaus? An active duty, serving General Officer, in a war zone, with responsibility for the lives of 160,000 U.S. service members in theater. Active duty. Serving. Not a private citizen.

Catch the pattern here?

What irritates the dickens out of me is that the DIMS try to portray the MoveOn ad as synonamous with the Swiftboating of Hanoi John.

Several major and CRITIAL and TREASONOUS differences come to mind, INSTANTLY, for me.

1.) General Petraeus is a Commanding General in a field of battle DURING WAR.

2.) They slandered the General WITHOUT FOUNDATION

3.) They slandered the General FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF AMERICA

4.) Hanoi John was a Presidential Candidate

5.) Hanoi John was NOT at that time in jail for TREASON (Paris Peace Talks) as he clearly by his own testimony IN HIS OWN BOOK should have been.

6.) Hanoi John's "REPUTATION" as a Veteran is in direct conflict WITH HIS OWN BOOKS, like Winter Soldier, and his own bragging about such events as THE PARIS PEACE TALKS

7.) As a Presidential candidate, Hanoi John HAD NO RIGHT TO PRESENT HIMSELF AS A CANDIDATE AND SIMULTANEOUSLY REMOVE THE BOOK FROM PUBLIC PERUSAL AND REFUSE TO GIVE HIS MILITARY RECORDS TO THE PUBLIC

8.) The "ATTACK" of the Swiftboaters included DIRECT SWORN TESTIMONY disputing Hanoi John's own bragging about himself, AND SEEMS TO THIS DAY TO HAVE LEGITIMACY, SEEMS TO THIS DAY to have a ligher likelihood of BEING FACTUALLY ACCURATE.

9.) At the time of the Swiftboat ads, Hanoi John was NOT the COMMANDER IN THE FIELD of American military forces

10.) More military people IN GOOD STANDING dispute Hanoi John's record than defend it, and Hanoi John doesn't defend it WITH THE RECORD, or EVIDENCE.

11.) General Petraeus' portrait is NOT on the wall of any of our ENEMIES war museums as THEIR HERO.

12.) Hanoi John's IS!

saschal: the Senate passes a resolution 72-25 condemning the MoveOn add. Hooray! They can’t slow down the war, they can’t ensure troops have sufficient rest between assignments, they can’t restore Habeas Corpus, they can’t pass any sort of amendment to even try to dissuade the administration from starting a new war with Iran (we’ll just have to depend on the administration’s good sense).

1. "Slow down" the war? Oh, you mean by denying the money and supplies and men that the Pentagon asks for? Say, do you suppose we should have "slowed down the war" in, oh, 1863 or 1944? What purpose does it serve to slow down the war? Other than give the terrorists a breather, that is?

And dems tell us that They Support the Troops!(TM)

2. Sufficient rest between assignments? Hmmm... How much is "sufficient" for a man who's been shot at? And don't you think that the military is a little bit better qualified than a bunch of wardheelers in the Congress to make that judgement? How much "rest between assignments" did troops during the War for Independence, the Civil War, World War I or World War II get? None? How did they EVER manage?

Would you care to comment on John Paul Vann's famous remark about our (failed) effort in Vietnam:

"We weren't in Vietnam for ten years; we were there for one year ten times" (referring to the one-year combat tour that guaranteed that experienced troops were constantly rotating out to be replaced by inexperienced troops, mostly fresh from basic training).

3. Habeus corpus has been suspended??? Glad the local police don't know about that. How did YOU find out?

/sarcasm

4. Um, if Congress wants to "dissuade" Bush from attacking Iran, there's a very simple thing they can do:

Vote against a declaration of war or authorization for use of military force.

And guess what! If they want to stop the war in Iraq, all they have to do is cut the funding! QED. The fact that Grand Admiral Reid and Commissar Pelosi can't even get a symbolic "WAAAAHHHH! We don't like the war!" vote passed demonstrates either that the war isn't QUITE as hopeless or unpopular as Benedict Arnolds like to tell us it is, or that Reid, Pelosi and their disgusting crew are even more incompetent than we think (I mean, what kind of idiots are constantly outsmarted by George Bush????).

Come to think of it, it COULD be both...

Jeepers, I never thought I'd sincerely be agreeing with someone named coldwarrior415, but, damn, you hit the nail on the head about the size and component parts of our military.

Could we agree that since adding about 25,000 in the wake of 9/11, but not since we've been in