• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Senate Condemns "General Betray Us" Ad

Non-issue.
Fine you believe supporting the General who risk his life to secure our country is frivolous. That's your stand and you're sticking to it. The rest of us will judge those who voted to send him there and the turned their backs on him when he was so reprehensibly slandered.

MoveOn didn't vote for the General and can say whatever they wish. MoveOn is not the official spokesmen for Congress and those in Congress should not be forced to condemn or back MoveOn's ad or any other tabloid ad no matter what it says.

All this is is merely partisan politics played by Republicans meant to bring slander to the opposing side in the hopes of increasing the possibility for re-election.
 
Interesting. A vote was taken right before the vote in the OP:

Statement of Purpose: 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.


...

I guess there are a hell of a lot of Republicans that think that the Government shouldn't condemn the attacks, eh?

Basically the votes say Democrats wish to reaffirm all support for military personnel and Republicans want to only reaffirm support for military personnel when it fits their political objectives.
 
You can say **** Congress but not **** the president. Fair enough.

I "can" say what I want, but I am held to a higher standard than most. But on that note, when was the last time you saw me call President Clinton names? When was the last time I criticized an American President in a derogatory way or felt compelled to curse one out? Perhaps it was my Marine brat upbringing or my current status as a Marine, but I am able to criticize without losing my respect for such a position.

Say what you will about Clinton or Bush, but they have achieved something you and I will never achieve. As leaders of the free world, this position often demands that they not only choose between wrong and right as the world dictates to them their opinions, but also make a decision between two wrongs. The weight of the free world is very much squarely on this position.

So, I will criticize constructively, but I will maintain a measure of respect for this chair during their presidencies and after.

Congress is a zoo of idiots who survive by catering to their party's wants over the country's needs.

Therefore we should take your comments about the government with that large grain of salt.

Take it how you like. I'm not sure what you mean.
 
Oops, posted too quickly. So what it comes to are TWO bills, both pretty much saying the same thing. The main difference? The republicans vote for the bill introduced by a republican (Cornryn- R-TX) and the democrats voted for the bill introduced by the democrats (Boxer D-CA).

And no, neither can play in my sandbox.

The first bill was different in that it also condemned the actions of the Swift Boat Vets, which is not an analogous issue.
 

Would it be this part?

SA 2947. Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Durbin) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 2011 proposed by Mr. Nelson of Nebraska (for Mr. Levin) to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; as follows:

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC.X--SENSE OF SENATE.

(a) FINDINGS.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;

(2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;

(3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``reprehensible'';

(4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;

(5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as ``dishonest and dishonorable.''

(6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus; who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and

(7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.

(b) SENSE OF SENATE.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

(2) to strongly condemn all 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.

It seems the end point of all this from the Republican stand point is that it is NOT OK for civilians to criticize military personnel but it is OK for military personnel to criticize military personnel. Personally, I was unaware that military personnel were held at a higher level then other US citizens.
 


Mr. Obama had voted minutes earlier in favor of an extremely similar resolution proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.

Ms. Boxer’s proposal, which failed, called for the Senate to “strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism” of anyone in the United States armed forces. It did not name MoveOn.org, but criticized the ad that appeared in The Times. Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Clinton also voted in favor of Ms. Boxer’s proposal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/us/politics/21moveon.html?ref=washington

Mr. DURBIN. I would like to be notified when I have spoken for 2 minutes and leave the remaining time under the control of Senator Boxer.

This is a balanced amendment that Senator Boxer, Senator Levin, and I have offered to this bill. I am not sure this is a debate in which we ought to engage on a regular basis, but Senator Cornyn has the right to raise this issue, and he has raised it.

The point we want to make is this: The Cornyn amendment focuses on one organization and one attack on an honorable, patriotic leader of our military, General Petraeus. If this resolution that he offers would be fair, it would also take into consideration the situations that we have raised in our amendment with Senator Boxer.

...

The Boxer amendment, which I am honored to cosponsor, changes it. I think the examples we have cited in this amendment include not only the MoveOn ad, which has been dismissed and criticized by many on both sides of the aisle, but also goes to the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth out of Texas, an organization that attacked our colleague, Senator John Kerry, in what I think was one of the lowest moments in Presidential politics. It goes to the attacks on Senator Max Cleland, a man who used to sit in a wheelchair, having lost three limbs in Vietnam, a disabled veteran struggling to be a Senator from Georgia whose patriotism and courage were attacked in a political ad--something which I am sure is going to remain a shameful chapter in American politics.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

(Note: I'm not sure if these links work for everyone, I didn't see anything about ads when I clicked yours, so I hope mine works. If not, its page S11783 of the NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008, which you can get to by going here:
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/r...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00343

clicking the link for S.Amdt 2947, clicking on "consideration: CR S11782-11785", and then clicking on S11783)
 
Would it be this part?

Thank you, that's a better link than mine.

It seems the end point of all this from the Republican stand point is that it is NOT OK for civilians to criticize military personnel but it is OK for military personnel to criticize military personnel. Personally, I was unaware that military personnel were held at a higher level then other US citizens.

No, I read the Republican perspective on this as being:

1) When a political organization that does not fund any political campaigns wants to attack current politicians that it opposes, it is permitted to do so, even though it is reprehensible.

2) When a political organization that to this day, provides huge amounts of funding to dozens of politicians and is one of the largest fundraising tools for that party attacks a military official who is not a politician, it is also permitted to do so, but is reprehensible and should be repudiated by all politicians, including those who continue to avail themselves of the largess of said political organization.

By putting up that resolution, the Dems were trying to conflate the two, so as to be able to say "So? You did it, so we can too." Only problem is that the two are NOT analogous, no matter how hard they try to spin it.
 
So you place more importance on a few measly dollars than you do on our supporting the man in charge of defending the nation and making sure your little world is secure. How telling.
Excuse me? Defending our nation from what? I see no threat against America in Iraq. When's the last time an Iraqi attacked an American outside of Iraq?

It's post that contain this sort of bullshit that really amaze me. Talk about a Straw Man argument! Patreus is defending Americans in Iraq but I do not see a threat to the United States mainland coming from Iraq EXCEPT that Iraq is now the leading training ground in how to kill Americans in a guerrilla war.

Let me myself clear...."THEY" are not going to follow us here if we leave....
 
Haiti continues to be a mess because we only kept the peace in the ghetto. We did (and do) nothing to build this neighboring society up. We merely keep it on life support. Clinton had a chance, but yanked us when the polls suggested. Remember the Gitmo camps that housed the refugees trying to get to Florida? I was there. This will happen again..

And yet what has bush done to correct this mistake? Oh yeah NOTHING. **** your misrepresentation. Blame the CURRENT president for doing nothing about it. Oh yeah you won't, he is GOD to you.
 
Oops, posted too quickly. So what it comes to are TWO bills, both pretty much saying the same thing. The main difference? The republicans vote for the bill introduced by a republican (Cornryn- R-TX) and the democrats voted for the bill introduced by the democrats (Boxer D-CA).

And no, neither can play in my sandbox.

It's crap like this that is destroying America.
 
Do Senators get paid by the hour? Did this cost the US tax payers anything?
 
Did this cost the US tax payers anything?
Of course it did. The time they spent on this BS could have been spent on something worthwhile. Like changing "marriage" to "civil union", legalizing marijuana, working on medical liability reform, etc, etc.
 
Of course it did. The time they spent on this BS could have been spent on something worthwhile. Like changing "marriage" to "civil union", legalizing marijuana, working on medical liability reform, etc, etc.
I was talking about money.
 
I was talking about money.
Oh, in that case yes again. They get a salary out of taxpayer money, and they should be earning that salary instead of wasting time.
 
I have one question. What about these statements, made by politicians in the past?

We ended up…spending our time on a meaningless resolution giving the president advice about who the attorney general ought to be.” [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
“I want an open and honest debate, and not political posturing. I was sent here to take action, not waste time on non-binding and empty resolutions.” [Sen. Craig Thomas (R-WY)
They’ve wasted the first seven months by being excessively partisan and creating unnecessary, in my view, disputes with a pretty robust minority of 49.” [Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Now I am not saying that condemning the "Betray Us" ad is a bad thing, but it seems to me that the Republicans were hell bent on passing a non-binding resolution, when not so long ago, they were going ballistic on the Democrats for doing just that.

GOP = The hypocrisy party.
 
Oh, in that case yes again. They get a salary out of taxpayer money, and they should be earning that salary instead of wasting time.
In other words, this didn't cost the taxpayers a cent, so the only objection is that they gave their opinion. They have the right to do that, same as Moveon.
 
By the way, they weren't the first ones to suggest that Patraeus is a White House lackey.

The ad called him a traitor not a lackey. Why the attempt to whitewash it?
 
In other words, this didn't cost the taxpayers a cent, so the only objection is that they gave their opinion. They have the right to do that, same as Moveon.

Even if it did what they are saying is that this General who is over there away from his family risking his life to lead our troops in war is not worth a few cents to defend him against and outrageous personal smear perpetrated by a group that now has political control of the Democrat party and to show support for the job THEY sent him on.

The more they try to use this to rationalize it the worse it makes them look.
 
The ad called him a traitor not a lackey. Why the attempt to whitewash it?

First of all, not once is the word "traitor" used in the entire ad. If you had read the ad, you would see that it implies that he is a lackey for the Bush Administration, which makes him a traitor because he betrayed our trust. I'm not trying to whitewash anything.
 
The ad called him a traitor
This is a complete falsehood. The ad never called him a traitor...only you've called him that Stinger. Why can't you stick with the truth?

If you would reread the ad it asks a question it does not call the good general anything.

Why must the Gang of Five, Stinger especially and so many Republicans lie to America so much?
 
My post......

GySgt said:
Haiti continues to be a mess because we only kept the peace in the ghetto. We did (and do) nothing to build this neighboring society up. We merely keep it on life support. Clinton had a chance, but yanked us when the polls suggested. Remember the Gitmo camps that housed the refugees trying to get to Florida? I was there. This will happen again.

To which you replied.....
And yet what has bush done to correct this mistake? Oh yeah NOTHING. **** your misrepresentation. Blame the CURRENT president for doing nothing about it. Oh yeah you won't, he is GOD to you.

Try your hardest to pay attention. It's not too hard. Just take a few deep breaths. ready? here we go...

If you look at my post again you will clearly see...."We did (and do) nothing," which places blame squarely on both Presidents.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but the word "do" is a present tense word. Most people would naturally assume that "did" pertains to President Clinton and "do" pertains to the current President. I'm not going to suggest that Bush is the current president or anything because my facts might be wrong. But, do your own homework of who sits in the White House. I'm also not aware of the President holding a Deity status.

One could argue that had 9/11 not occurred, perhaps something of substance would have been done for Haiti, but the truth is that Haiti would have been ignored. Next time you want to see "misrepresentation", find a post with misrepresentation in it. Your bitching won't be so embarrassing this way. I would spend some time putting a post together to correctly define for you the blatant and grossly neglectful moves conducted by the White House and the OSD in the last few six years just to show you that your obnoxious post is without merit, but you're simply not worth it. And given that you couldn't even read the words in my post, chances are that you would be confused about it anyway.

What is it with you people that need to see malicious bashing to understand the simplest posts?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom