Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Senate condemns "General Betray Us" ad

2007-09-21

The Senate voted Thursday to condemn an advertisement by the liberal anti-war group MoveOn.org that accused the top military commander in Iraq of betrayal. The 72-25 vote condemned the full-page ad that appeared in The New York Times last week as Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq, testified on Capitol Hill. The ad was headlined: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House."

The ad became a life raft for the Republican party as the war debate kicked into high gear. With several Republicans opposed to President Bush's war strategy, GOP members were able to put aside their differences and rally around their disapproval of the ad. Sen. Gordon Smith, one of the few Republican senators who supports legislation ordering troop withdrawals, told reporters Thursday he thought Petraeus' testimony and the MoveOn.org ad were the two biggest factors in keeping Republicans from breaking ranks with the president: Petraeus' testimony because it was persuasive and the MoveOn add because it went too far by attacking a popular uniformed officer. "It was stupid on their part and disgraceful," said Smith, R-Ore.

The resolution condemning the ad was sponsored by conservative Republican John Cornyn of Texas. Voting against it were Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another contender for the Democratic nomination, ~~wimped out~~ did not vote, although he voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. That resolution condemned the MoveOn ad as an "unwarranted personal attack," but also condemned political attack ads that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., both Vietnam veterans.

In a news conference, President Bush denounced the ad as "disgusting" and criticized Democrats for not immediately condemning it. "And that leads me to come to this conclusion: that most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org, or more afraid of irritating them, then they are of irritating the United States military," Bush said Thursday.

Eli Pariser, executive director of the liberal group, responded: "What's disgusting is that the president has more interest in political attacks than developing an exit strategy to get our troops out of Iraq and end this awful war."

Posted by:Fred

#16 MOVEON reportedly just came out with a second ad.

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-09-21 23:42

#15 So, the Trunk candidate can now hammer Hillary from now till election day, unrelenting and unapologetically.

If they don't, they deserve to lose. Hillary's vote against this bill was atrocious.

The woman has shown she doesn't trust the American military. Period. How can anyone hold the seat of the Commander in Chief and so throughly mistrust something America's military which she does? Given the American people trust their military far greater than their politicians, there's the theme the Trunks should be hammering now, tomorrow, and on and on and on.

Excellent post, P2K. Yet one more reason I will never vote for a democrat ever again. Hillary et al are handing the Republicans all the ammunition they need to win in 2008. If the conservatives cannot figure how to use it they deserve to lose.

Posted by: Zenster 2007-09-21 23:22

#14 I notice that resolution that Osama did vote on earlier was sponsored by my own Senator Barbara Boxer from California. She makes me ashamed of California but she obviously has no shame herself.

On 9/11 everybody was relating their personal experiences. Mine wasn't so spectacular so I didn't. But I do remember in the wee hours of 9/12 I woke up to the sound of jets flying overhead. I knew they weren't commercial because those had all been grounded. So they had to be military fighter pilots, probably Marines from Miramar, patrolling the skies to make sure we were all safe below. I respect these guys. I appreciate the fact that they were there.

They do what they are told no matter who is in the White House. You have to appreciate that as well although it is sometimes hard for me to understand. I guess the idea is that no matter how disgusted they might be with a president like Bill Clinton, or his wife, they are serving the country.

Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-09-21 15:27

#13 I believe it was actually Hillary who stated she loathed the military.

At one point, rumor has it, military uniforms were banned from the White House no matter who was wearing them by order of Hillary. I don;t know where this rumor originated or how it could have been enforced, but I've heard it nonetheless.

Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-09-21 14:58

#12 Heard similar, OP, including from military assigned to escort them in other places.

Posted by: lotp 2007-09-21 14:30

#11 looking at the votes, at least Billary had the balls to vote, while Hussein didn't, but wussed out. testicularly challenged, he is.

Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-09-21 14:19

#10 Comments I've heard from people that served in DC during the Clinton presidency suggest that the loathing wasn't confined to Bill, but was a full-blown family trait. Both Hitlery and Chelsea were totally rude and ungracious to the military that were forced to serve them. That's just one of about a thousand reasons I don't want another member of that family to be in the White House as anything other than a casual visitor.

Posted by: Old Patriot 2007-09-21 14:03

#9 I recall that Mr. Hilliary said he loathed the military.

Posted by: JohnQC 2007-09-21 10:04

#8 So, the Trunk candidate can now hammer Hillary from now till election day, unrelenting and unapologetically.

The woman has shown she doesn't trust the American military. Period. How can anyone hold the seat of the Commander in Chief and so throughly mistrust something America's military which she does? Given the American people trust their military far greater than their politicians, there's the theme the Trunks should be hammering now, tomorrow, and on and on and on.

The men and women of the armed forces, from the figurative and literal heartland of America, are not robots. They are not mindless souls. They serve not just for pay, regardless of the bigoted crap of MoveOn and other neo-leftists. Inherited within the ability of the military to function effectively is a common theme, respect is both ways. When that respect disappears, so does the effectiveness. One only has to look at the Army at the end of the Vietnam period, when it had already dropped the draft, with fraggings, high AWOL rates, high levels of disciplinary problems, drug abuse, and high departure rates of senior enlisted and middle grade officers. Can America afford to watch the exodus of the core of their military who'll be the orphaned and whipping child of this creature?

Unfortunately, I doubt the Trunks have the nerve to play it. Unlike the Senator from New York, most don't think that politics is a blood sport.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-09-21 09:45

#7 War is the continuation of politics by other means.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2007-09-21 06:49

#6 National Review observes: "Some of the senators who won the greatest support from the netroots in the last election, like McCaskill, Tester, Klobuchar, and Webb, voted to condemn the ad."

Posted by: Mike 2007-09-21 06:39

#5 Sting them? I would hope so, but doubt it.

It'll just confirm their 'worst fears', whatever they might be.

Posted by: Bobby 2007-09-21 06:30

#4 'Stupid' will sting them more than 'disgraceful', unfortunately.

Posted by: lotp 2007-09-21 06:25

#3 "It was stupid on their part and disgraceful," said Smith, RINO-Ore.

But mostly stupid, eh Gordon? A better way to say it would have been "It was disgraceful on their part."

Posted by: gorb 2007-09-21 03:53

#2 The only reason this war is not already won because our nation is divided over values that have nothing to do with the war itself.
Had the war never been waged the liberals and Moveon would have hated GWB just as much,
but they would not have had the nails and hammer nor the tree to beat and hang him with.
Undoubtedly, the 25 "no" votes were Democrats, which means fear of public backlash has perfectly divided the Democrats in two.
May John Cornyn be blessed. Like David the senator has single handedly slain the Anti-american Goliath with the sword of truth and derision.
If America votes for anybody who has so betrayed our commanding general and risked the lives of all those who serve under him in the fight against terrorism then she deserves to reap the same fate terrorists have sown.
Hillary Care will not mean much to children whose father was killed trying to keep them safe from predators who would bring them harm.
May Hillary reap what terrorists have sown cause in seeking power she has sown terrorism.

Posted by: Push over pushes back 2007-09-21 01:55

#1 If you think this awful war is political, you are disgusting.Democrats are nothing to me. You are bad romans with a desire for destruction. all of you. even that mamby pamby "blue dog" rep you hired last cycle. YOU disgust me in everything you do democrats. everything. It is not only war, it is peace. it is everything. You need a new vision. the 1940's have past and with rave reviews with the hundreds of thousands killed and the nasty takeovers you and your horrible "educators" have planned.

Your party is a horrible abomination that causes desolation - if not that at least shared misery. you have no vision and you have fought against GOD ALMIGHTY.

I determine your place in history next to the assholes in rome. If you take over, I sacrifice your country to GOD and keep on moving on. You are worthless on all accounts. It shall be a burnt offering.

Posted by: newc 2007-09-21 01:22

00:00