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 Iraq, the President hasn't asked for any increases of the sort you mention? And that increase he hasn't asked be made permanent. Shouldn't he at least ask? Instead of wait? Why didn't he ask a Republican Congress? Why won't he ask this Congress and let them go on record for something meaningful (instead of a resolution condemning a political ad)?

What I hate about the military, and it isn't really hate, but it is anger, is that they let Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz deplete our security, which Lt. Col. Paul Yingling calls a "failure in generalship," as he says in an article in Armed Forces Journal.

Petreus seems a top-notch fellow doing a top-notch job, and MoveOn makes a lot of noise especially for MoveOn, but don't we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about who did or didn't vote for this ridiculous amendment condemning a ridiculous ad? Petreus couldn't tell Senator Warner if the campaign he's working on is making America safer. At some level, shouldn't that be somebody's job?

I frankly think Obama did the right thing in not bothering with this, and I'm not advertising him for president, but however much maneuvering and thought he had to put in it to come up with not voting was already a waste of time.

OmegaPaladin said:

"John Kerry's service in Vietnam was one of the few things I liked about him."

Just curious-what about his service there did you like? Did he actually accomplish anything in his shortened tour there, other than going on that secret mission to Cambodia that President-elect Nixon sent him on?

Skeptical said, "Petreus couldn't tell Senator Warner if the campaign he's working on is making America safer."

Not exactly true. The general originally said something to the effect that this sort of question was above his pay grade, but when further pressed for his "opinion" General Petreus indicated that, in his opinion, it is making us safer.

It's not Gen. Petreaus' job to interpret if the Iraq War is making the country safer. That is the job of the Joint Chiefs, CIA, NSA, DOD, etc. His job is to command the troops in Iraq and lead them to victory.

"MoveOn has the right to free speech."

They don't have the right to SLANDER a commander of American military forces IN THE FIELD OF BATTLE - THAT is NOT a portion of what Freedom of Speech is.

If they merely said, as has been said of other American military commanders, "He is an ass!", or "He is an incompetent nincompoop!", or some such tommyrot, THAT IS THEIR OPINION.

When they call him a BETRAYER OF AMERICA - THAT is SLANDER AND TREASON.
They do NOT have the right to undermine our troops in the field of battle.

"The people have a right to petition, but not to use that right to cover calumniating insinuations." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1808. ME 12:166

"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels -- men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, we may never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion." --Dwight Eisenhower

Others do NOT have a right to COLOR their TREASON with excuses such as Freedom of Speech, which has been paid for by the blood of our soldiers, and many others, on the field of honor.
THAT is why Eisenhower said the two things MAY NOT BE CONFUSED.
Such felonies as TREASON were NOT paid for by the blood of our patriots.

Our Founding Fathers were rebels - but they rebelled against WRONG being done to their British Citizenship by the POLITICIANS of the day.

THESE political activists are rebelling against the LEGITIMATE RULE of the MAJORITY of Americans who have consented by ACTIONS AND VOTES to this war in Iraq.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

Why didn't Petreaus comment on if America was safer or not? Not under his perview. To respond would heve been mere conjecture. He is the in theater Commander of US Forces in Iraq. Not commander of U.S. Army North. He stated such to this and other questions about operations in Afghanistan, for example. Dave is a straight shooter, has been since his plebe days at West Point. Warner asking the question was the problem. If Warner wanted an answer of substance he should have asked LTG Tom Turner. U.S. Army North is his perview. And he could have asked an assortment of officers in the JCS at the Pentagon. Warner's question was intended as a political jab. Petreaus parried it well.

Posted by Teresa | September 20, 2007 2:27 PM
******************

PRESENT THE EVIDENCE THAT HANOI JOHN SERVED HONORABLY!

HE CERTAINLY NEVER DID DURING HIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN.

And Korea presented the evidence that HE DID NOT, when that photograph of Hanoi John's portrait surfaced.

Hanoi John produced evidence THAT HE DID NOT, in Winter Soldier, which his campaign snatched up as quickly as ants on rice.

Produce the EVIDENCE!

Posted by Teresa | September 20, 2007 2:27 PM

Max Cleland lost his limbs due to his own clumsiness, not as an act of military heroism. He moved forward in his own life, and "heroicly" confessed the truth when the DIMS attempted to lie about his injuries to glorify his defense of Dim policies.

NOBODY fromt he right dissed him on his military service.

His physical injuries don't insulate him from an assessment of his political choices in life - particularly to support a man clearly guilty of TREASON for the candidacy of the President of the USA.

You cannot equate these situations - none of the THREE men have anything in common.

WHERE ARE HANOI JOHN'S TRUE MILITARY RECORDS???

If he wants the REPUTATION, let him provide the BONAFIDES. - THE BOOKS AND THE MILITARY PAPERS, including those of President CARTER'S.

Without them, the testimony of his PEERS IN GOOD STANDING WHO HAVE PRODUCED THEIR OWN RECORDS will stand - AS IT WOULD IN ANY COURT OF LAW IN THE LAND - WHICH IS WHY HANOI JOHN HAS NOT SUED THE SWIFTBOATERS FOR SLANDER!

One day, Hanoi John will stand before God Jehovah ALMIGHTY for his own Day of Judgement.

There will be no prevaricating on that day.

There will be NO unearned reputations, either!

Socrates must be rolling in his grave!

Heck, where would Lincoln have gone, if he limited his debate to something stupid, like this "betray us" business?

It's there.

They shot their wad.

And, Bush, who still cannot put a coherent speech together; has his popularity ratings shooting up. WHY? Because the monkeys elected to the senate (both sides) bloviated against a very good man.

And, because of the Internet? More people actually saw this.

And, if you want the votes. (Separate than a category for Ron Paul); and you asked people their opinions, you'd find out that it's Bush's best moves; when he just lets the congress critters get to the microphones. And, make asses of themselves.

Yes. It's time to stand back.

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

Gee, it would be just swell if any of you were PATRIOTIC to AMERICA, just a FRACTION as much as you are loyal to SOCIALISM.

While I don't agree with Hillary's vote, I do like the fact that she had the grapefruits to vote for what she believes in, rather than the cowardly Obama not voting at all.

Posted by Jay | September 20, 2007 2:58 PM

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.

Hell no, I do not denounce the Swiftboat ads.

They are NOT equal and they are NOT OPPOSITE.

We have a right to demand TRUTHFUL ANDWERS from Presidential Candidates and HANOI JOHN was JERKING THE TRUTH ABOUT HIMSELF AS FAST AS HIS MINIONS COULD FIND IT, including STEALING HIS OWN BOOK OUT OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES.

IN A COURT OF LAW, Hanoi John would have had to produce HIS MILITARY PAPERS, HIS BOOK and THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORDINGS OF HIS TESTIMONY - and the photograph of his portrait in the Korean WAR MUSEUM as an HONORED HERO would have been EVIDENCE.

AS WOULD ALL TESTIMONY OF THE PARIS PEACE TALKS, and the CARTER ADMINISTRATION CLEANUP of his military records.

The swiftboaters gave their records to the general public and gave sworn affidavits of their testimony against him - THEY OUTNUMBERED HIM IN QUALITY AND QUANITY regarding testimony of the QUALITY of SERVICE he gave America - THERE WAS NOT THAT MUCH EVIDENCE AGAINST BENEDICT ARNOLD.

THEY HAD A RIGHT TO BE HEARD AND WE THE VOTERS HAVE A RIGHT TO HEAR IT!

NONE OF WHAT THEY SAID HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE SLANDER.

NONE OF WHAT THEY SAID HAS UNDERMINED OUR TROOPS IN THE FIELD OF BATTLE - AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO DO SO.

NONE OF WHAT THEY SAID WAS MEANT TO UNDERMINE THE VOTED WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, OR TO SUBVERT THE WILL OF AMERICA WITH SLANDER AND LIES.

I fully support the Swiftboat Vets.

I fully condemn the Democrat Party as the Stalinist Arm of World Politics, according to STATED PLATFORMS of each concurring group.

Communist Goals (1963)

Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963

Posted by Teresa | September 20, 2007 2:59 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Ann Coulter never said Max Cleland was playing around.

Now you are slandering her, as well.

That someone here speaks of it as "playing around" in a momentary memory gliche of the details, during conversation, doesn't altar the facts - Max Cleland seems to have served honorably in the performance of his duties AT THAT TIME - but his injury was NOT the result of his own HEROIC ACTIONS.

Max Cleland HAS NEVER SOUGHT TO PORTRAY HIMSELF FALSELY - but the DIM PARTY DID!

And nobody in the GOP sought to SLANDER Max Cleland.

However, having thus said that, the fact that Max blew off his own body members doesn't automatically make him the repository of the knowledge of whether Hanoi John would make a great President or not.

Nor does it make his "testimony" about HANOI JOHN more credible than that of the Swiftboat Vets.

Nor does Hanoi John have the right to treat the Swiftboat Vets like he treated HIS OWN BOOKS.

All Hanoi John had to do was bring out his own book and records, instead of making aFederal case out of the FREEDOM OF SPEECH of VETERANS.

F-you, you whiny Republicans...You claim "free speech" "free speech" when Max Cleland was attacked, or when those filithy Swift Boat Drunks went after Kerry.....Now, you bitch because Moveon.org excerises the same right...

And that's a BS argument about the Swift Boat Drunks serving w/Kerry...Their ads were funded by a Republican donor from Texas, it was PURELY partsian...And if you can't see that, your blind & walking without a cane...

I hope all those Swift Boat Drunks are homeless & living under a bridge - they deserve it for what they did to a hero like John Kerry....

Tom,

Its all in the meaning. You've defined a liberal meaning of the word "swiftboating".

And the first military officer who came to mind after reading Boxer's amendment was Arnold. So your thought that nobody would think of him translates into "Boxer and Tom didn't think of him" in my head. If I can think of him in a few milliseconds of reading Boxer's text, I'm sure a whole passel of much smarter Senators did too. They were just nicer to Boxer than I would have been.

In my vernacular, swiftboating means taking a person's own ill-chosen words and deeds and making him live them again and again. Kerry got to eat what he served others over and over. He even got to eat it on the same day on the same TV program (unluckily for the rest of us, in a different year). I think the SBVT guys totally torpedoed Kerry's Presidency, and I think Kerry thinks so too. Every time someone even peripherally associated with SBVT comes before him, he gets out the knives. It's obvious that this liberal obsession with them rules his life now -- as it should, since he will never, ever be President while they are around.

Military service doesn't get you an automatic pass -- isn't that what the 25 are saying to Petraeus? Isn't that what moveon.org is saying to Petraeus?

So, using your definition of "swiftboating", we are seeing it happen to an officer on active duty, and we are seeing at least 25 members of congress agree that it's ok, because it was done to John Kerry a few years back when he was a candidate for public office. Wow. I really can't fathom the logic here at all. I'm totally clueless.

OK, if Petraeus is really betray-us, then lets have those 25 Senators call hearings into his dishonesty, rake him over the coals, force him to resign his commission. They can do it. After all, they've put themselves on record as feeling that's the case.

Maybe he will return to New York upon retirement and run for the Senate. Better would be a move to Massachusetts, where he can show off medals he has never claimed he threw over a fence.

Well, seems Rick has made an excellent case for our growing understanding of the logic and linguistic abilities of the Left.

Thank you, Rick.

Posted by Teresa | September 20, 2007 3:08 PM

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?

Why don't YOU! The BUSH campaign didn't do that - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID. And they did it because of McCain's difficulty in remaining PATRIOTIC to American interests, over the years.

And just where are HIS records, either????

Besides, who claims that McCain was TORTURED? All I've ever heard is that he buckled and spilled his guts about his home ship, after being threatened with WITHHOLDING MEDICAL TREATMENT for his PRE-EXISTING medical conditions.

I see that the GOP'ers in the crowd are sticking with the Stalinist approach of re-writing (falsifying) history to suit their current political purposes. Well done, comrades. War is peace.

For all those complaining about unfair treatment of Kerry, Cleland, Muthra and all your other "war heroes," remember this:

Before becoming a traitor, Benedict Arnold was a true war hero. His deeds were based in fact, not illusion. He sought personal aggrandizement and paid the price.

The current lot of demoncrats and their minions are similar traitors. Keep worring about petty concerns, such as fairness, and with luck, you may just survive the havoc your deeds will sow, because there is a fifth-column in the country now who want nothing more than to destroy you, me and all we stand for.

Don't like being called a traitor, than stop acting like one and / or supporting them!

Posted by kingronjo | September 20, 2007 3:04 PM 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.

MAJOR MEGA DITTOS AND KUDOS!

AMEN!!! HEAR HEAR!!!

And may the richly deserved Democrat harvest at long last come home to roost on their heads.

ONE THING is sure - THE STALINIST DETERMINATION to keep SOCIALISM from being outlawed in AMERICA has been shown to be what it is, for what it is.

The Democrats have FULLY DEMONSTRATED that SOCIALISM has NO RIGHTEOUS PLACE in a democratic republic UNDER ANY EXCUSE.
It cannot exist in any nation WITHOUT PERPETRATING TREASON against the host nation.

Is it the democrats position that no military general will be trusted to spout anything but the party line? How about when they hold the white house? Are we to say, unless they are holding the administration to task, that they are liars?
Dems and libs are often saying that they support the "real war" in afghanistan. How about if a general comes in and speaks about the "good" war which is still raging, though going slower than we'd like. Are they instantly liars?
Doesn't this stance pretty much mean the dems are writing off the military as untrustworthy, even on the war that they supposedly agree is worth fighting? Or is that a lie too?

I suspect that MoveOn suggested that Petraeus "betrayed us" because his report didn't tell the truth about the status in Iraq ... much like the president and the generals during the Vietnam war misled the American people (and the media) about the actual conditions and progress in Vietnam. Telling falsehoods/creating false impressions about the war = betrayal, was the equation.

Posted by KellyJ | September 20, 2007 4:08 PM

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.

Obama and Biden both obviously felt that MoveOn hadn't paid them enough for their vote on this issue, and so they were not obligated to vote NO, but that they were also not obligated to our troops and our nation for them to be moved to vote YES.

coldwarrior415, you focused on the trivia in my post, as this whole biz about condemning political speech is idiotic trivia.

Aren't you concerned that the Commander in Chief has squandered opportunities to make us safer by blowing so much of our blood and treasure in a country that didn't have thousands of centrifuges running, in a country that was not connected with 9/11, with a war plan that lacked sufficient contingencies, etc., etc.? I assume it is above Petreus's pay grade to make determinations like the one Warner was asking him in the larger strategy of our worldwide commitments, as I'm sure in some limited sense when Petreus gets a sheik to go after a jihadist with a weapon we handed him, we are a little safer. But look how we're squandering these opportunities, and being abandoned by allies, and footing the bill on the next generation.

You were willing to say, "why has Congress not seriously addressed the size and component parts of our present military forces?" Why not say that about the President? Presumably he's got better intel on that.

Moreover, not every island we battled over in the Pacific brought us closer to victory over Japan, and in some cases were abandoned so that we could get at the real prize. Sometimes you do that, or you maintain a stalemate as did the European generals in the trenches in France.

When will he ask Congress for the appropriate tools for the job?

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

Why should George Bush put his credibility on the line to disavow something the DEMOCRATS PROVE TO BE TRUE on a daily basis? You think we cannot see your Treasonous HATRED of America, with every breath you spew out????????

If you don't like being called Traitors, then quit exemplifying the dictionary definition of it according to your Stalinist marching orders.

if the republican party pooped, a lot of you would grab a fork. This is nothing but empty, wasteful politics.

Moveon.org is an idiotic group with a declining membership. They are the Air America of political action committees.

But that doesn't mean that elected senators can't temporarily sideline their feigned moral outrage and discuss an ongoing war like civil, thoughtful beings.

Who voted correctly on this issue? The three senators who didn't vote.

And look at you all: shadowboxing a wispy, figmental threat, moveon.org. The horrors. You need to be sparring with the dead center of American politics, the growing majority of people who want the heck out of the middle east.

Go Ron Paul. Go Barack. Go anyone who had the foresight to oppose this ridiculous incursion into the hotbed of ethnic rivalry.

Why should it matter if a military leader is active or retired, whether he or she is leading troops in battle or working a desk job at the Pentagon? Since when have military men or women of any rank accrued a sacred patina, rendering them out of bounds for criticism, derision, or attack? If we are free to vilify the fools, crooks, and poltroons that riddle our ranks of government, why should we refrain from similar free attacks on the military? This is the most obvious form of sentimental twaddle, that the men and women we send to face bullets and bombs on our behalf (or on the behalf of corporate or imperialistic interests) are too frail to withstand criticism, warranted or not, fair or unfair. Those who voice such shocked dismay at criticism of those in the military have no true respect for the military, but merely use them as sacred cows in a propagandistic attempt to promote their objectives or to condemn those who oppose those objectives.

And who says Petraeus was NOT acting as a political operative?

Max Cleland?

Posted by Teresa | September 20, 2007 2:27 PM

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.

Max Cleland?

The guy who blew his own limbs off because he didn't know how to throw a grenade after pulling the pin? Whose self-inflicted wound in some way is supposed to evoke pangs of heroism and sacrifice for him?

Give me a break.

It's great to see the Republicans foundering like this. No plan, no ideas, no execution.

Perhaps they'll be able to run on the condemnation of an opinion. I suppose they know their constituency.

But, hey, I hear that next week's minority agenda includes an amendment condemning the wearing of white shoes after Labor Day.

Remeber, MoveOn OWNS the Democrats. Be afraid!!!!!
Be very very afraid!!!!!!

Posted by montysano | September 20, 2007 5:07 PM

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

It isn't going to be forgotten.

It isn't going to be forgotten, like Bill Clinton and his Rhodes scholarship and his Moscow vacation, like Hanoi John and his Paris Peace Talks and Winter Soldier, like Hanoi Jane.

Like McDermott being a human shield for Saddam Hussein, like Toady Chappaquiddick Kennedy and Mary Jo Koepeckne, like Barney Franks and his prostitute boyfriend, like Nancy Pelosi and her pac felony and her Syrian TV interview, like Hillary Clinton and her Rose Law firm, Vince Foster, 1,000 FBI files, Chinagate, and Hsu, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc....

It will NOT be forgotten.

It is only "political theater" to you Liberal Socialists, but it is the health of our community to us.

We won't forget. We will NEVER forget.

somebody get Rose a SEDATIVE!! i think she's gonna BLOW UP!

ROSE! chill!

sasha1 says:

"And who says Petraeus was NOT acting as a political operative?"

Read your lawbooks. At least 3 US Criminal Codes, as well as numerous military regulations, explicitly prohibit US military people from acting as political advocates for any cause. In other words, you're calling the General a criminal without any proof.

Why don't you and the ACLU and MoveOn file criminal charges against the guy? Let me make some popcorn first, though.

Kerry's War records:

Geez...they were easy to find after all. Kerry released everything in 2005. Guess what? Nothing to hide nor cover up. In fact if you read through the set you will find, just as this article noted, numerous commendations from people who years later condemmed him! I have read some of these and they are simply glowing! Amd gee whiz, thes military officers that provided these commendations wouldnt lie would they? Are not they honest men of the caliber of Petraus? Or are the righties questioning these mens honor?

Kerry allows Navy release of military, medical records
Show numerous commendations
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | June 7, 2005

Although the Swifties claimed it was not the whole record:

However, the Navy spokesman, Commander Hernandez, said the latest release does include the papers from St. Louis. "It's the whole record," he said.

Kerry should have ben smart like Darth Vader Cheney and not joined the military because darn it I had better things to do at the time...

Funny thing that Vietnam War thingie...

In reading General Giap's memoir a while back I came to the understandiong that Giap was one of the unsung military leaders of the past century, and that the Vietnam War was "won" for North Vietnam and "lost" by us, thanks in a huge part by Americans thousands of miles from Vietnam.

"What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!" --- General Vo Nguyen Giap {I have had this printed on a card since reading his book.]

In 1968, the Viet Cong ceased to exist as a combat effective military unit. The North Vietnamese allowed the Viet Cong to be chewed up and slaughtered wholesale, believing that the South Vietnamese people would rise up and push the Americans from their country. Didn't work out that way. North Vietnam had to start drafting kids as young as 14 and 15 to fill its ranks and use first rank NVA units to continue operations in the South. When we began our bombing of military and strategic areas of North Vietnam, the NVA was cut down to a massive scale, along with the strategic and logistics ability to wage war.

But, somehow along the way, too many Americans have let themselves be led to believe that we "lost" in South Vietnam. No. We lost because the North Vietnamese had a massive fifth column in our press and media and in the hundreds of thousands of vocal antiwar protesters.

The North Vietnamese clearly feel the American anti-war protesters were a very important force in undermining support in the United States for American war efforts, a force that contributed materially to ultimate communist victory in 1975. They have a rather extensive exhibit in their National Museum dedicated to those Americans who helped them win the War.

This isn't Stalinist revisionist history or a re-writing of that war. This viewpoint comes directly from the victors in that war. It is published and studied, and dead on target.

Were all the US generals lying? I don't know. I haven't ready access to DoD archives nor the Congressional Record for the time period.

But, there was, however, and a matter of public record, a very large contingent of Congress who felt they "had to suspend disbelief" when being briefed by them, relied on polling, and pre-determined the outcome of our military operations in Southeast Asia.

Just about the time of the Battle of An Loc, mid-1972, where the ARVN stood their ground against a tank heavy assault by several combat hardened divisions of the North Vietnamese Army driving on Saigon and destroyed them, the Congress had already begun to cut funding for US Forces in Vietnam and especially military aid to South Vietnam. By 1975, Congress cut all funding for South Vietnam. By April 1975, South Vietnam ceased to exist.

But, the progress and ebb and flow of battle in Vietnam briefed to Congress by the generals was derided and flat out tossed in the trash. Congress and the American people, it seemed, knew MORE about military operations and tactics and the like from several thousand miles away than did the American military commanders on the ground in theater.

Of course, we are visiting the same rubric today.

The Iraqi Army is standing up, is taking command of large tracts of Iraq, destroying insurgents and insurgent infrastructure, capturing and killing foreign fighters en masse, and is working fairly well in conjunction with the US military and scoring more and more successes, and the people of Iraq are seeing this more and more daily. Of course, no one in the Green Zone wishes to report on ANY Iraqi Army successes. For most Americans, the Iraqi Army doesn't exist.

Congress once again, and an American people who rely on American MSM alone for most of their news, make their determination, and are trying to conduct strategic and tactical battle planning with an enormous paucity of knowledge of the military operational arts and far far less understanding of Iraq and the region.

Combat by poll. I will have to add that to the list of essential maxims along with those of Clauswitz, Patton, Marshall, Sun Tsu, Giap, and other great military strategists.

Congress reacting to polls and making military decisions based on those polls. A dangerous dangerous precedent and practice.

Anyone know how long Eisenhower's order for the invasion of the continent at Normandy was?

One page. A couple paragraphs.

And did Congress demand to parse every syllable? Thank God they did not, or were not composed of the current crop in Congress. We'd have never gotten off the transports.

The similarities of our "loss" in Vietnam and our potential loss in Iraq are striking in one key specific arena. When the battlefield tide is turning, so many wish to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Rick babbled:

"And that's a BS argument about the Swift Boat Drunks serving w/Kerry..."

LOL! Brilliant satire. Calling them "drunks" was especially deep, especially since Kerry's fellow Senator from Massachusetts is a well-known drunk himself, yet keeps getting re-elected like clockwork.

I can assure you, the Swifties DID serve with Kerry. I should know, as one of Kerry's commanding officers, Adrian Lonsdale, had only 4 years earlier been the exact same guy who was my Dad's commanding officer when they were both Coast Guard officers. Mr. Lonsdale's service as Kerry's commanding officer is well-documented, except on leftwing pro-Kerry websites who only mention that he supported Kerry as a Senate candidate but bailed on him later.

Just curious: can you give us credible-repeat, credible-evidence that none of the Swifties served in Vietnam? While you're at it, please document, with credible evidence, that the Swifties were "lying" when they went after their former colleague. Specific examples of their "lies" would also be helpful.

And remember, the key word is credible. Which means no anti-Bush or pro-Kerry websites. Give us actual news sources-or better yet military records-that prove that none of the Swifties actually served with Kerry.

And remember, Kerry himself has STILL not released all of his own military records, which proves that he's the one hiding something.

The Man said:

"Geez...they were easy to find after all. Kerry released everything in 2005"

Nice try. He relased "all" of them to the NY Times-owned Boston Globe (which had endorsed him for President).

One slight problem: the Globe was the ONLY entity he gave them to, and they never published them all. Why should they?

I've been gone for awhile to a school event, but I love how people like Mike and Rose continue to question Max Cleland's honor even after I posted what really happened. Jumping on a loose grenade -- which WAS NOT HIS -- to protect others around him is the definition of bravery. But you go ahead and believe Ann Coulter's version of history.

And, Rose, please stop and take some meds. And especially stop posting things and putting "posted by Teresa" on them when they aren't mine. I really don't appreciate it.

Rose writes regarding Bush's slander of McCain’s military service in SC:

The BUSH campaign didn't do that - THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DID. And they did it because of McCain's difficulty in remaining PATRIOTIC to American interests, over the years.

And just where are HIS records, either????

Besides, who claims that McCain was TORTURED? All I've ever heard is that he buckled and spilled his guts about his home ship, after being threatened with WITHHOLDING MEDICAL TREATMENT for his PRE-EXISTING medical conditions.
_______________________________

And there, for the entire world to see, is the utter cravenness of the Republican party on the issue of supporting the troops. Thanks Rose for proving my point.

Any Republicans want to stand up for McCain's honor or should we let Rose's statement stand for all of you?

The Man..

I suggest you do a little research... you'll find John Kerry received 4 deferments ( per John Kerry as reported February 18, 1970 in the Harvard Crimson). Upon learning his 5th deferment( Cheney rec'd a 5th ) was denied it was then and only then he volunteered to avoid being drafted.

Had he been drafted he'd have been told what branch of service to serve in rather by volunteering it was his to chose..

To his credit he did "volunteer" but it wasn't in anyway a willing volunteerism... it was an either or..

Oh and the kicker is.. his request for a 5th deferment was so he could study in.... Paris

Posted by Mark In Irvine | September 20, 2007 7:52 PM

I suspect that MoveOn suggested that Petraeus "betrayed us" because his report didn't tell the truth about the status in Iraq ... much like the president and the generals during the Vietnam war misled the American people (and the media) about the actual conditions and progress in Vietnam. Telling falsehoods/creating false impressions about the war = betrayal, was the equation.

However, contrary to what you claim you "suspect", the self-evident TRUTH is that the Vietnam Generals didn't lie, and that the Iraqi Generals are not now lying - but that what is happening now as in Vietnam is that the DEMOCRATS are having themselves a big enough TEMPER TANTRUM to make SURE they snatch DEFEAT out of the mouth of Victory for our troops, at the expense of our troops and our allies and all the innocent civilians onthe gorund, and of America's legitimate interests, and our legitimate expenditures of tax-payer dollars.
That Democrats are willing to throw enough big-enough temper tantrums to counteract ALL the LEGITIMATE outlays of American decisions and plans, and prevent our legitimate goals from being accomplished - NO MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO THWART AMERICA and hurt others, to get ILLEGITIMATE POWER over the situation.

THAT is what is infinitely clear to the WORLD.

YOU don't have the VOTES, or the AUTHORITY - but you aren't going to let THAT little tiny thing IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC stop you from all your destructions.

You are like a small toddler brat that destroys the legitimate ends of a home, and marriage.

SHALOM IN THE HOME had an episode last year, like you - a small toddler wouldn't let go of mommie's leg, 24/7/52, not to sleep in his own bed, or let mommie have relationships with anyone else on the planet, not the other siblings, and not the husband, the child's father, either, until the home was broken up - and the parents got divorced - then mommie tried to make the daddy take custody of the child she had deliberately spoiled into a monster, because he wouldn't any longer even allow her to even have a night's sleep.
They had been to counsellors and all kinds of people, and she wouldn't listen to anyone about how to handle that brat properly, and in fact, every time they gave her instructions, she used the instructions to find a way to make the situation that much worse.

THAT is the Democrat Party of Liberal/Socialist/Progressive/Stalinist/Marxists et al, etc, with the UN, ACLU, MoveOn, NAMBLA, PETA, NAACP, Hollywood, etc etc etc.

You cannot EARN the power (votes), so you will DESTROY. And for you, that is good.

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

BY HIS OWN ADMISSION AS HE DISAVOWED THE DIM PUBLICITY GARBAGE.

Rose since you clearly did not read the statement by Cleland's commanding officer, I'll post it again:

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

Some "beer run".

Posted by cleek | September 20, 2007 8:32 PM

somebody get Rose a SEDATIVE!! i think she's gonna BLOW UP!

ROSE! chill!

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I find Treason to be quite chilling, thank you.

Petraeus is a political General, not a real General like Eisenhower was.

And check out this piece of his testimony.

"Is everything you are doing over there making America safer?" Sen. John Warner asked. Petraeus tried to evade the question, but Warner wouldn't let him off the hook. "Is it making America safer?" he persisted.

"I don't know," Petraeus replied. In other words, maybe these nearly 4,000 young people who died and the 27,000 who have suffered wounds simply died and suffered for nothing. After all, their own commanding officer has now gone on record that he doesn't know if the sacrifices they are making are doing anything to make their country safer. That's a heck of a note.

Hillary made a HUGE mistake today. It will help her secure the democrat nomination, but it will cost her the election.

Posted by Teresa | September 20, 2007 9:39 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

MAX said he thought the grenade was a DUD!

Interesting how when DIMS statements don't help the DIM CAUSE of the moment, the DIM POSTERS always distort their own guys' words.

And there, for the entire world to see, is the utter cravenness of the Republican party on the issue of supporting the troops. Thanks Rose for proving my point.

Any Republicans want to stand up for McCain's honor or should we let Rose's statement stand for all of you?

TELLING, that the ONE REPUBLICAN you LIBERALS will stand up for is McCain, of McCain Feingold, of SHAMNESTY, of GANG OF 14, etc etc etc.

Do YOU have any information that refutes what I was able to find in RESEARCH?

IF YOU HAVE ANY FACTS on McCAIN, PLEASE DO SHARE!

Cleland did not jump on a loose grenade to protect others around him. He picked up a grenade laying on the ground. In doing so, picking up unchecked live ordnance, he actually exposed those around him to its lethality. Not the definition of bravery.

Cleland was awarded the Silver Star (Meritorious) and the Bronze Star (Meritorious) for his service in Vietnam. And deserves those accolades. But not a Purple Heart. Nor was he awarded the Soldiers Medal, which would have been automatically awarded had he indeed jumped on a loose live grenade outside of a combat engagement to protect those around him.

And as to that statement by his "commanding officer." Maury Cralle was NOT his cvommanding officer, but was the battalion exec officer. More than a technical difference. The timing of Cralle's retort and relatively new entry into the biographic record of former Senator Cleland was when it was made a partisan act.

That a Battalion Executive Officer woulkd dispatch his Battalion Signal Officer to erect a radio relay antenna (something a few Sp/4's with a decent NCO would know how and be able to do easily) seems a terrible waste of talent, and is gnerally viewed as a lack of cohesive thinking on the part of the officer who dispatched him.

Nonetheless, Max Cleland served his country at a time when doing so was ungodly unpopular. And apparently those who did exercise command over him beleived he served well, thus the two awards for meritorious service. Not valor awards, but meritorious awards.

That said, once a military officer leaves military service and enters the political arena, everything and anything they say or do in furtherance of their political agenda is legitimate for criticism. As it should be. Otherwise we risk the establishment of a de facto military elite within our political structure, based on the idea that either no one who served honorably can be crfiticized, or, worse, ONLY those who served in the military can be elected to public office.

Once out of uniform, they are the same as every other American citizen.

Posted by SteveJ | September 20, 2007 9:40 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

How can the military over there make us safer at home WITH ALL THE DEMOCRATS RUNNING LOOSE?

That power to secure us isn't in the hands of the military, with Democrats condoning eachother in Treason all day every day.

" I don't know" is the only truthful non-conjecture answer Petreaus could give in response to Warner's loaded question.

Petreaus does not suffer conjecture well, never has througout his career. The question Warner asked was not in Dave Petreaus' perview. Just as the many questions on Afghanistan were not.

Like I said earlier, if Warner wanted a factual answer on if Iraq has made America safer or not, LTG Tom Turner would be the person to ask. He has more access to more information on the subject than does Dave Petreaus.

"Jumping on a loose grenade -- which WAS NOT HIS -- to protect others around him is the definition of bravery."

I heard Max on TV when he gave a full account of the event, he didn't "jump on a grenade" to save anyone else - THAT was the garbage the DIMS tryied to put on him, and mad him terribly ashamed. He picked it up because he thought it was a dud, or his own grenade had fallen off his own belt.

We all know it - IT AIRED ON TV LIVE straight from his own mouth!

WHO do you think you are fooling?

We haven't denegrated HIS SERVICE, at all.

You destroy your own credibility every time you open your own mouth, and spew your Stalinist garbage.

Posted by Teresa | September 20, 2007 9:16 PM

...
And, Rose, please stop and take some meds. And especially stop posting things and putting "posted by Teresa" on them when they aren't mine. I really don't appreciate it.

Since you think I've posted things under your name that are not yours, it seems you are the one in need of meds.

You've got to be kidding me.

So now the Conservative Republican from Virginia asks loaded questions -- is that how you want to play it?

The General in charge of a military operation was asked if he felt the operation was necessary for our security.

It is not beyond a General's purview to explain how a military operation helps our security.

And how is the response "I don't know" an acceptable answer?

"... In other words, maybe these nearly 4,000 young people who died and the 27,000 who have suffered wounds simply died and suffered for nothing. After all, their own commanding officer has now gone on record that he doesn't know if the sacrifices they are making are doing anything to make their country safer. That's a heck of a note."

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Well, we all know if there is anything that the DIMS can do to make it so that our troops died in vain and all their hard work is for naught, the Dims certainly WILL GLADLY DO SO!

Of that, there is no doubt.

I must say I have enjoyed this awesome debate...

I got confused when someone referred to Kerry as JFK, just to keep the debate straight can we call him Kerry or something other than JFK. Cause I only think of John F Kennedy, who was never called a traitor by anyone Republican or Democrat and did serve honorably in the military.

I have learned soooo much...Kerry never released his records....Yes he did....No, not all of them....It's in this report....

I do find the ad appalling, and I served honorably in the Navy for 6 years, I have medals and stuff too.

Uhmmm Rose, I do agree with most of what you are saying, but you do need to relax a bit. By yourself you will never change their minds or alter what has happened. I'm a bit worried that you're going to stress yourself out and that won't do anyone any good.

Okay all you conservatives and liberals and dems and republicans, and people lost in the middle let me leave you with a note that I wrote in frustration the other week, I hope you like it.

God Bless everyone, Teresa, Rose, Bob, Bob and everyone:

I Am An American

I may be a man, I may be a woman
But I AM AN AMERICAN

I may be a Republican, I may be a Democrat or I may be Independent
But I AM AN AMERICAN

I may have voted for Al Gore, I may have voted for George W. Bush,
I may have voted for Bill Clinton, or maybe Ronald Reagan
But I AM AN AMERICAN

I may be conservative, I may be liberal or somewhere in between
But I AM AN AMERICAN

I may be a celebrity in Hollywood, or a social worker in Washington, D.C.
I may be a college professor, or a janitor at city hall,
But I AM AN AMERICAN

I may be black, or white or Native American, or of European or Asian descent, or all of the above
But I AM AN AMERICAN

I may be a stay at home Mom, or a career business woman
I may be a single Dad, or a bank executive
But I AM AN AMERICAN

I may raise longhorn cattle in Texas, or wheat in Nebraska,
I may trap lobster in Maine, or pick coconuts in Hawaii,
I may work the oil line in Alaska, or be a lifeguard in Daytona Beach
But I AM AN AMERICAN

I may have served in the military, or be a conscientious objector
I may be a policeman, fireman or a paramedic,
I may be a doctor or a lawyer,
But I AM AN AMERICAN

And I will NOT let anyone, anywhere on the face of the Earth, shame that out of me by talk filled with hatred, bitterness and petty jealousy,

Nor will any act of terrorism frighten that out of me,

For I have a strong heritage of freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America

AND I WILL NOT BACK DOWN,

Because I AM AN AMERICAN!

Again, God bless everyone, have fun. Good night.

To answer beyond "I don't know" would have been a sophisticated guess at best, and Petreaus doesn't do that sort of thing, especially when anything he says in that venue would be parsed and misconstrued almost immediately and would have added nothing to that which he was charged with addressing. Tangental discourse when he had limited time to respond to questions that were in regard to the Command over which he has cognizance, thanks to so many members of Congress making speeches instead of asking questions of substance.

He has a specific theater under his command. His focus is and should be on that theater, not what is happening at CENTCOM or NORTHCOM or any other adjacent or superior command. When serving generals wander over into another area of operations it is more than just bad policy, it is a terribly bad lack of military judgement. One command, one general. One does not expect the CG of the 82nd make operational decisions, or comment about the tactics and decisions of/for the CG of the 10th Mountain. Nor should one.

Well Rose, I can agree with you that Democrat comments about this are not made for substantive reasons. They hate Bush.

But real Conservatives never signed on to the neocon drivel.

Unless Conservatives reclaim control of the party, I may have to sit out the next few elections.

SteveJ

Don't you know the real reason Petraeus couldn't answer that question?

It's because even he doesn't know what the mission is.

Posted by Scot | September 20, 2007 10:26 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Great Post!

With all due respect, your talking about a guy who wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks before the Bush re-election riddled with things he had to have known were inaccurate. It was purely a suck-up job.

Lawrence Korb, Reagan's assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense wrote as much. I suppose he and Warner aren't "real" Republicans.

They are NOT neocon idiots -- I'll tell you that much.

Hmm last time I checked Grenades were not to be suspended by their rings from load bearing gear. that is what grenade pouches on the sides of magazine pouches are for. Seems like A JOHN WAYNE impersonation. To remeber a famous Line

"MR GRENADE IS NO LONGER YOUR FRIEND WHEN THE PIN IS GONE !!!!!!

That is why pins are not to be straightened until the ambush is set or the grenade is ready to be put into use. Duct tape is also a standard fail safe as a loose grenade sans pin and spoon can lead to trip to Arlington.....

simply pathetic...

Re coldwarrier415's comment "Were all the US generals lying? I don't know. I haven't ready access to DoD archives nor the Congressional Record for the time period."

Read Daniel Ellsberg's book "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers" and you'll see that the generals and the White House WERE lying. From the beginning. Read "Fire In The Lake" by Frances Fitzgerald, and you'll see how the US ignored the history of Vietnam before going in, and supported dictators who could not be popularly elected and who misled the US for their own personal gain.

If there are analogies between Vietnam and Iraq, one of them would be the misinformation and misrepresentations that got the US into both conflicts.

Re: Scot's "I am an American": this is good, but won't go over well, because it doesn't demonize anyone. Since the Republican efforts during the Clinton administration, it's all about demonization, all the time.

I would like to see many, many of the columnists,
reporters, bloggers etc write a daily remark
about MoveOn repeating again and again how
they are running the democratic party.
They are in control as can easliy be seen by
who voted against condemnatin of the MoveOn
ad.

How much real money has Soros put into this
blog that has taken over the internet for the
liberals, what does he plan to do when he
gets a liberal he has control over, because
he is after power, simple greedy power. He wants a
president like Hillary who will do his bidding
as she did today.

She is not so stupid that she does not see she
will lose some liberals that really think once
in awhile.

This could be a huge issue if the republicans
and the people who report for them as there are
many questions about the why of MoveOn. The president is not letting it go, it seems. Why
not?

Keep asking them, keep looking for the money,
who owns what and who?

They are dangerous, so very dangerous to
America, this is not a usual election, it is
a vital one.

How is it MoveOn can say they own the liberal
party and no one even blinks? Would you feel
the same if it was a republican blog or would
you wonder why?

Jay, there's a good suspicion John Kerry was Dishonerably Discharged from the service in 1972.

After Carter won, the Disharge was "changed." And, to clear things up? Well, the evidence shows John Kerry never signed his 180.

Did he marry for money? Twice.

Is he called a gigolo? Yes.

Did he lose in 2004? Yes.

Is congress acclaimed? Or have they lost the public's confidence?

We live in a free country; full of wide-ranging opinions.

Just like back in Abraham Lincoln's time; when he was called Chimpy by the press. Only later, the tables turned. And, the journalists faded into dust.

From Dan Rather, tonight, you can take it that "losing audience" is a big deal to some of these old geezers.

Petraeus benefitted from his chance to be viewed by the AMerican public. More know his name, now, than ever. And, most appreciate him for being top notch. Couldn't get there if he didn't face all those bloviating senators.

Really!

Good haircuts; good suits; and being elected. Really doesn't prove much when it comes to character.

And, if you have to bet? The Military carries good character as a trait, most in the public applaud.

Again. Free country. Can't please everybody.

I find it bizarre that conservatives who used to talk about getting "big government" out of the way... are THIS determined to have the federal government get involved in a stupid newspaper ad! Why are conservatives running to the big federal government when they're upset nowadays? (Ron Paul's a nut but he totally has the change in conservatives pegged-- from "small government" to "huge government dependents!") And it's so funny how the GOP is so desperate to change the subject from *what Petraeus said* to *what some stupid ad said*. Why are they so afraid to actually discuss the real issue?

Heck, even in Florida, with college kids, Kerry couldn't even draw much of a crowd. Let alone friendly questions. And, then when the "fan" got the contents (tazed); Kerry just dropped off the screen. While that Meyer kid? ("Don't taze me, bro," actually faces a 5 year jail term; depending how his trial goes.) WASN'T WORTH IT!

No matter how it will turn out, wasn't worth it!

WHile Irak, full of arabs, is a very tough problem to cure. The people within the country are very tribal. And, because of "religious differences," within the Religion of Peace," they're at each other's throats.

If I had to guess? Bush doesn't care much for Maliki.

And, as the news is breaking (our way). We see that iran and syria were into some very serious business with chemical warheads. And, nukes. But it didn't pan out.

Is money spent on that stuff? Sure.

Did it get tranferred? Since the Al-Hamed did make its delivery; before discovering the oceans are flat. And, they're not around anymore. SO, who can you question?

Please don't say Bibi Netanyahu! He's NOT in Olmert's government! He's a blow hard, just like our bloviating senators. They see cameras; and they've already got their makeup on.

Now, if Dan Rather were still one of the 3 big anchors. And, there was no Internet. And, Peter Jennings was still alive. I guess we'd be unable to communicate.

Here? I'm free to pick and choose.

And, even though I share very little of Ann Coulter's conservative views, I read her stuff. Because she's funny.

And, I appreciate funny.

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

Heh, that's an odd way to put it.

I remember Reagan was trashed for his service in the media.

Same with Bush 41.

Questioning Clinton's draft status was considered a low blow by the same media.

But come another Republican, Bush43, and it was ok to trash his service in the TANG, heck, the media even used fake documents to go after him in 2004.

The irony in 2004 was that a group of Vietnam Vets went after Kerry's service. Hard to blame them considering what Kerry had done to them of course. Old Genghis Khan* himself was very big on tit for tat himself amusingly - just ask Muslim historians...

*Or how do self important blowhards spell it now? Jenghiz?

Posted by SteveJ | September 20, 2007 10:20 PM

You've got to be kidding me.

So now the Conservative Republican from Virginia asks loaded questions -- is that how you want to play it?

You want to call JOHN WARNER a CONSERVATIVE???????????????????

THAT is how you want to play this???????????????

HAW HAW H AW HAW HAW!!!!

And this General is supposed to be responsible for American security in a world where the DIMS want UNIONS to control AIRLINE SECURITY and NO "RACIAL" PROFILING OF MUSLIM YOUNG MEN ACTING IN SSTRANGE WAYS - but they want the ACLU to SUE JOHN DOES for "DARING TO" be questioning their behavior on passenger airlines???

In the REAL WORLD where the DIMS are registering ILLEGAL ALIENS and handing them 37 American VOTING CARDS EACH, and blasting our borders WIDE "F"ING OPEN, and rolling out the red carpet with STUDENT VISAS and STUDENT TUITION???????????

And you are hysterical about American civil liberties when the SECURITY FORCES want to tap the lines of FOREIGN AGENTS whose numbers are found in ISLAMOFASCIST COMPUTERS AND NOTEBOOKS??????

IS THAT how you want to play it????????????????

Go for it, Liberal! Go for it!

Posted by Darth Koshi | September 20, 2007 11:43 PM

Why are they so afraid to actually discuss the real issue?

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

The real issue is DIM TREASON. When that ad came out BEFORE the testimony of Petraeus, the DIMS are the ones that proved the REPORT had NO IMPORTANCE to THEM whatsoever.

But they slandered him WITHOUT FOUNDATION - during a time of war.

THAT is TREASON.

Credibility for Dims - FLUSHED!

And NOW you want it to be about the report??????

SO FUNNY! HAW HAW HAW!!!!

"...Unless Conservatives reclaim control of the party, I may have to sit out the next few elections."

Well, Steve, the way it sits right now, Duncan Hunter is the only official candidate I can see my way clear to vote for.

I won't vote for any of the RINOS.

If I didn't have better sense than THAT, Dah Ahnold Man makes it all perfectly clear.

But I'm not sitting out. I'll be voting for someone who reflects the values I feel are critical, as a write-in candidate, in the General Election, just as I did in the Robert Dole/Bill Clinton face off.

No, that certainly was NOT for Clinton butt-buddy, H.Ross Perot.

I won't sit it out - the clerks will have to log and count and record each write-in vote, all the way from local precinct through County and District, to State, to National voting records, and lose a little sleep for the effort. And the local and state and national political parties will come around and gather the names of the candidates who were written in, and take that list back to their offices, part of what is considered, as they chew on the facts that might tell them WHY THEY LOST THE VOTES OF THE PEOPLE in their turf.

I won't give them MICKEY MOUSE answers.

I'll give them something to make them LOSE SLEEP over!

Petraeus and Odierno are LIARS!

The irony in 2004 was that a group of Vietnam Vets went after Kerry's service

Better known as lying whores.

Read Daniel Ellsberg's book "Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers"

Oh. my. G-d!!

Daniel Ellsberg....bwah ha ha ha!

Can't seem to find the full-page ad Ann Coulter spent 5 figures on, attacking a Clinton Adminstration General (or anyone else) in the New York Times. I'll keep looking...

GEORGE SOROS

When do the Republicans start to expose this rat?

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party are this
mans bitch.

It's time he was made an issue.

Hi,

This General is an honorable man who has dedicated his life to OUR country and has the Bronze Star Medal for Valor

___

Gen. David H. Petraeus
Commanding General ~~ Multi-National Force - Iraq

General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq on February 10th, 2007, following his assignment as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Prior to assuming command at Ft. Leavenworth, he was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission- Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005.

That deployment to Iraq followed his command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during which he led the “Screaming Eagles” in combat throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force-Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander - Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm.

He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings.

In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America’s 25 Best Leaders.

LIAR...I do not think so.

Peace!
Steve
General David Betray Us

From the DoD's Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq

September 14, 2007
Report to Congress In accordance with the Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2007 (Section 9010, Public Law 109-289)

National reconciliation is an essential element for long-term stability in a representative Iraq. Despite security improvements during this reporting period, political reconciliation has shown little progress.

Political reconciliation is taking place at the local level. At the national level it will come after the country has been pacified. Pacification is proceeding apace.

When Iraq is pacified(and al Qaeda is decimated in the process) the Steve J's of this world will insist that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror.

ok, all 25 did vote for the democratic version which also condemned the smear jobs done on Max Clelland and Kerry. There is a reason that generals should not allow themselves to be politicized which gen Petraeus has done, they leave the military sphere and join the political sphere where the rules are different. Lets be real, gen Petraeus is not a hero in the Iraqi war and is not a war hero period, he is too young to have served in the last real shooting war, and got his medals from the Desert Storm rollover as a senior officer. the heros are the company grade grunts and enlisted who are at the sharp tip of spear.

Move-on is just using the license that the Republican Party gave them in 2004 to smear the record of anyone who did serve if they do not toe the line. Its a pity that my party allowed this to happen, but it did and now we reap the results.

Thanks for posting the list -- have e-mailed my state's senators already! Of all the news stories that I saw, *none* gave a breakdown of who didn't vote (aside from Clinton & Obama).

I haven't time to read all this discussion. But I asked a friend who knows such things whether there is a provision in the Massachusetts Constitution for a petition to recall its Senators in Congress.

Unfortunately, he said there is not.

The execrable John Faux Kerry is up for reelection in 2008. I sure hope we can find someone to defeat him. A former Delta Force guy named Jeff Beatty is starting a campaign as a Republican:

http://www.jeffbeatty.com/

/Mr Lynn

(I know this is way up the page now, but..)

Sashel,
once a General retires he is allowed to enter politics so they deserve a bit more scrutiny and are more open to criticism.

"Do you support all of Gen. Wesley Clark's opinions?"
Clark is now a politician (angling for a VP nod) so anything he says is suspect.

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

Zinni was one of the Clintonista hacks that still infest the General ranks in the military. This in reality is probably the biggest problem that the military faces today, all the Generals that the Clintons promoted largely based on their political reliability. Shinseki is another prime example (although he's thankfully also retired now). Zinni is rumored to be angling for the SecDef slot in a second Clinton Admin (God help us!).

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

Odom is an old Carter and Brzezinski protege. I served under Odom (way, way down the chain of command) when he was NSA director in the '80s and I can say most of the troops thought he was an idiot. We couldn't understand why Reagan gave him the job.

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

Abizaid is also retired and is considered to be largely responsible (along with that blithering idiot Sanchez) for the failures in Iraq during the two years before Petraeus took over. It is an old, old tradition for failed Generals to immediately start sabotaging their successors so that their own inadequacies don't stand out quit so much (think McClellan).

But the biggest difference between all these guys and Petraeus is that they are retired and not engaged in battle with the enemy. When the fight is on it's time to choose sides, us or them. It's obvious that MoveOn and Hillary has chosen them.

Looks like the RNC is still running AOL

It's scary how many people here and at other blogs seem to forget one very important thing. Our right to free speech. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to defend it. So does the Senate. It's a sad day when they waste important time inhibiting freedom of expression and speech when there is much more important work to be done.

There are quite serious penalties for lying to Congress. So why aren't the senators who voted not to denounce the move on ad doing something about it? Probably because, as others have said, they cannot afford to offend move on org.

When did the democrats lose America? They seem to me to be anti America. Against everything America stands for. I was a democrat now I am American working for Americans, unlike the traitors of the democrates against America. We need Americans for America not hating our great country.

Once again, the Right Wing desires to prevent anyone from exercising their First Amendment right. Its amazing how these so-called defenders of our freedom want to stifle all dissent. Bush was wrong to use a career soldier for his political ends and the General was wrong to allow himself to be so used. The General should have resigned when asked by the White House to be used as a political pawn.

Democrates want to destroy America, they vote against anything good for America. THey are socialists or communist and should move to Russia or Cuba and leave Americans alone.

Joe,

As I pointed out above, if the left really feels this way, they can act. They own congress, so let them convene hearings, censure Petraeus, force him to resign his commission.

But they won't, because the 25 were more about Kerry than Petraeus.

Thanks to the republicans and this president, Freedom of speech is now dead.

This is the right speech for our troops in IRAQ

"Hold your ground, hold your ground. Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brothers. I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of woes and shattered shields, when the age of men comes crashing down, but it is not this day. This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West! "
(Aragorn before the Black Gates)

as a independent i think all extreme ads left Or right are hurting this country a grest deal

Article says "It's a particularly sad commentary on the Democratic Party that they cannot bring themselves to support the very commander they sent to lead American troops in battle by a unanimous vote." It is a sad commentary from what angle? Sad that Bush's incompetence as Commander in Chief has now debased the legislature's trust in the supposedly non-political military leaders that are running this war? Or sad that the military is entrusted with the job of critiquing their own performance?

Chris:
"It's scary how many people here and at other blogs seem to forget one very important thing. Our right to free speech. You don't have to agree with it, but you do have to defend it. So does the Senate. It's a sad day when they waste important time inhibiting freedom of expression and speech when there is much more important work to be done."

Sigh... I don't think anybody here is saying that MoveOn can't say what they said. I think they should continue saying things like this over and over again between now and the election. Then we can tie their infantile rantings to the Democrats and use them as club to whack the hell out of Hillary and the gang.

Why is it that liberals (socialists or even marxists in reality) always seem to think that criticism of their whacky pronouncements is censorship. It is not. The real censors are liberals who feel that no one is allowed to question their patriotism or even sanity no matter what vile crap spews from their mouths (or keyboards). The 1st Amendment prohibits PRIOR RESTRAINT of speech BY THE GOVERNMENT not criticism of speech after it has been said by private citizens or even members of congress. A Sense of the Senate resolution is not in in any way, shape or form restraint, either prior or after the fact.

This effort to shut down criticism of MoveOn and the Dems is a classic Marxist tactic: take control of the dialog, determine what can and cannot be said. Pretty soon everybody is powerless to stop "the march of history".

Just have to wonder who is "denying free speech" on this issue.

Seriously.

No one at MoveOn has been arrested, detained, tortured, or sent to Gitmo, and MoveOn is still active on the web, still raising money, still distributing it to candiates and causes they chose.

MoveOn is free, very free, to publish or produce ANYTHING they wish.

So where is the denial of free speech garbage coming from?

What was asked of the Senate was a condemnation of a libelous slander against the Commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq. 25 openly chose to NOT denounce that slander. A good number chose to abstain from voting. The rest voted in the affirmative that the MoveOn ad was an abomination. They, ther Senate, was exercising not only free speech but also a Seenate tradition going back to our Founding.

That's it. Simple as that.

No censorship, no Big Brother jackbooted government coming in destroying presses and burning down anything.

Where exactly is that "denial of free speech?"

And don't confuse "dissent" with being against free speech. My "free speech" and my "dissent" against the likes of MoveON is of equal weight to ANY American's "free speech" or "dissent." No more. No less.

And what about the Republican "Swift Boat" smear(s) 0f Kerry ??? People in glass houses should not throw stones.

What happened to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

James Fuller:
"What happened to the freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

Again, criticism of MoveOn is not a restraint on freedom of speech or of the press! Criticism and back and forth argument is the very essence of freedom of speech.

Jeesh! How stupid can you be.

Rudy, nice try.

The answer to the Swift Boaters would have been a very simple, very forthcoming, and honest reply from John Kerry. His choice to first stonewall and then equivocate was his own downfall.

Had he come out swinging right from the start with factual, documented evidence to counter the Swift Boat assertions, perhaps the result would heve been very different. But, when it became apparent that the Kerry's memories (deeply seared into his brain) of sitting just outside the Cambodian border on Christmas, dispatched there by Nixon were clearly a lie, the Swift Boat asssertions gained traction.

Why Kerry chose not to present facts and documentation to counter the Swift Boater's is a result of his inability to recognize that he had been discovered, and his Patrician belief that since he was John Kerry the American public had the obligation to believe him merely because he said so.

I have had a grudge against Kerry, and those of his ilk, since my earliest days in uniform, a very young soldier who while in uniform was spat upon by a group of Vietnam Vets Against the War upon arrival at SF International Airport on my way to my first duty station. I hadn't even been assigned overseas yet. Fresh out of Basic. That these thugs and Kerry both stopped at nothing to slander American soldiers with falsehoods and out right lies showed me once and forever the cut of his jib.

I tend to not forget people who do that sort of thing. I also tend to not forget of what stuff they are made.

Don't blame it on the Swift Boaters. Blame it on Kerry. He's the one who screwed the pooch.

I find it incredible that liberals cant tell the difference between the routine sliming (by both sides) of candidates in the middle of a politial campaign and the sliming of a general in the middle of a war. I guess in the liberals twisted world view they are one in the same. The fact is that by any definition, Kerry was a traitor after Vietnam spreading enemy propaganda and meeting with the enemy. Cleland was never called a traitor, he was simply called on his idiotic record of putting union interests ahead of homeland security.

This IS a big deal because it demonstrates the fact that Moveon.org, a radical leftist anti American organization, has taken over the Democratic party. These people want nothing more than our total defeat and humiliation in Iraq and elsewhere and they could care less about how many Iraqis get killed in the process.

Clinton just disqualified herself as commander in chief with this vote. She has total contempt and hatred for the military, which she amply demonstrated during the hearings last week. The sneering scowl on her face showed exactly what she thought of Petreaus.

It's amazing how smart the average American citizen is in reality. If that is true then my question is why did we elect such weenie brains to make laws and control our lives? All done while filling their pockets. You and I receive Social Security a,d Medicare but theey get full salary and free medical anywhere in the world. Thats fair ask the house reps or senators.

Freedom of speech is not free it has been protected by the blood of our sons, daughters, fathers, uncles, aunts and just plain Joe six pack. Yet the SOB's write trash about our military leaders. If they weren't cowards they would serve their country and protect it's citizens from the evil ragheads.

People that live in caves, crap just outside or burn the dung for heat, wear diapers on their head held down by a fan belt or giant rubber band and kill old ladies because the wind blew their skirt above the ankles are just palin transh,

The anti war idiots are just that idiots and should be kicked in their rump. The ACLU would love that another way to harm America.

Over 3000 people were killed and/or injured by the poor Arabic peoples. My feeling is glass the bastards and drill for the oil on an angle.

30 years serving my country and bullet holes to prove it are the price I gladly paid to have freedom for the American Citizen.

Retired Colonel George

It's amazing how smart the average American citizen is in reality. If that is true then my question is why did we elect such weenie brains to make laws and control our lives? All done while filling their pockets. You and I receive Social Security a,d Medicare but theey get full salary and free medical anywhere in the world. Thats fair ask the house reps or senators.

Freedom of speech is not free it has been protected by the blood of our sons, daughters, fathers, uncles, aunts and just plain Joe six pack. Yet the SOB's write trash about our military leaders. If they weren't cowards they would serve their country and protect it's citizens from the evil ragheads.

People that live in caves, crap just outside or burn the dung for heat, wear diapers on their head held down by a fan belt or giant rubber band and kill old ladies because the wind blew their skirt above the ankles are just palin transh,

The anti war idiots are just that idiots and should be kicked in their rump. The ACLU would love that another way to harm America.

Over 3000 people were killed and/or injured by the poor Arabic peoples. My feeling is glass the bastards and drill for the oil on an angle.

30 years serving my country and bullet holes to prove it are the price I gladly paid to have freedom for the American Citizen.

Retired Colonel George

For the fools who keep insisting that free speach is dead you need to understand that freedom of speech does not mean that there will be no consequenses to such speech. The Senate resoltion is saying the the ad was slanderous and wrong, not that they cant say it. Why is that so hard to understand? It sums up the leftist mindset perfectly. Free speech for me but not for thee. If anyone in this country is stifling debate it is clearly the left.

if it looks like a duck!!!!!!!!
i would think by now that good honest americans ,
would see the left is just helping the enemy.
they seem to be happy to say the war is lost.
they seem to be happy when a soldier gives his or hers all so the can use it in politics!my god what
has happened???? they do not relalize that these
murders will blow them and their children up anywhere and any time. you can not talk to these people they hve to be distroyed.
god bless the troops

PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING THAT ONE CANNOT CRITISIZE THE GENERAL. THE CONGRESS SENT HIM WITH AN OVERWHELMING VOTE PROVIDING HE MAKE AN HONEST ASSESMENT, WELL DID YOU EVER HEAR OF A GENERAL ADMITTING TO NOT COMPLETE HIS ASSIGNMENT, THEY WOULD RATHER DIE WITH THEIR BOOTS ON.
IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THE PRESIDENT PULLED HIS STRINGS AND THAT IRAQ IS A LOST CAUSE. THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR A THOUSAND YEARS AND THEY WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO WHENEVER WE LEAVE. THAT'S WHAT THE GENERAL SHOULD HAVE REPORTED, INSTEAD HE CHOSE TO PUT OUR YOUNG MEN AT RISK.

Don't have to shout, Victor.

To have Dave Petreaus say what you propose would have been a total lie. Petreaus doesn't work that way. It isn't about people criticizing or not being allowed to criticize Petreaus. It is, however, all and totally about not only MoveOn's slanderous ad but also the number of Democratic Senators and Democratic Members of the House who essentially called Petreaus a liar...with no proffer of proof.

Haven't personally known very many active duty generals, have you? Besides, that old they have been fighting for a 1000 years thus will never stop fighting is a tad bit racist, isn't it?

The only way that I will ever have any confidence in the twenty-five senators that voted with .org, is to see TV footage of them wearing body armor and leading our heroes into the combat in Iraq. They deserve the opportunity!

I think Congress should have taken the same steps with moveon that they took with the Swift Boat guys. By voting on one and not the other, they did not support the troops but their own political hides.

Whatever happened to FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?

Thanks for listing the roll call vote. Now I know which 25 politicians to contribute to in upcoming elections.