I have to give the Dems a hand

[Tigermike 3,055]

Senate Votes to Condemn MoveOn for Ad Attacking General Petraeus

Thursday , September 20, 2007

WASHINGTON —

The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad it ran last week attacking Gen. David Petraeus. The move came as President Bush accused Democrats of cowering to the liberal political action group.

The measure passed in a 72-25 vote, with none of the Democratic presidential candidates supporting it. Sponsored by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, never one to shy away from forcing Democrats to go on record on politically sticky issues, the amendment to the defense authorization bill did win the backing of 23 Democrats.

Click here to see how your senators voted.

Sens. Joe Biden and Barack Obama were absent from the vote, though Obama had voted 20 minutes earlier on a Democratic effort to circumvent the amendment. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd voted against the measure.

The amendment did not specifically name MoveOn.org, but expressed "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(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

But supporters made clear the measure was about MoveOn, and was aimed at giving senators "a chance to distance themselves from the notion that some group has them on a leash, like a puppet on a string."

"Who would have ever expected anybody to go after a general in the field at a time of war, launch a smear campaign against a man we've entrusted with our mission in Iraq?" Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asked on the Senate floor. "Any group that does this sort of thing ought to be condemned. Let's take sides. General Petraeus or MoveOn.org. Which one are we going to believe? Which one are we going to condemn?"

Partisans also took the opportunity to slam Clinton and Obama for not voting on the amendment.

"Senators Clinton and Obama need to decide whether they’re running for America, or running for MoveOn.org. If Clinton and Obama cannot bring themselves to take a stand against a vicious attack on the man leading our forces in Iraq, why should American voters believe they are capable of demonstrating the leadership we need in a commander in chief?” said Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan.

"Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief," said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

In response to Senate passage of the amendment, MoveOn officials said the group was going to buy TV ad time to attack McConnell, R-Ky., and other senators who voted against a measure offered a day earlier by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb to require troops to have equal down time at home as they have deployed in war zones. The measure failed.

"No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can't do what most Americans want — vote to end this war," said Eli Pariser, executive director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

Over in the House, one Republican leader asked when that chamber will take up similar legislation. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he had no intention of bringing up the GOP's resolution.

"Denouncing this unconscionable assault on Gen. Petraeus integrity in a bipartisan manner would signal to the American people that these tactics have no place in our political discourse. True leadership means standing up for whats right — now is the time for Democrats in the House to demonstrate the capacity for that leadership," Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo, responded in a statement.

The Senate vote followed a statement by Bush during a press conference at the White House in which he argued that Democrats are more concerned about riling MoveOn than about riling the U.S. military.

"I was disappointed that not more leaders in the Democrat party spoke out strongly against that kind of ad, and that leads me to come to this kind of conclusion: That most Democrats are afraid of irritating a left-wing group like MoveOn.org — are more afraid of irritating them — than they are of irritating the United States military. That was a sorry deal," the president said.

"And (it's) one thing to attack me. It's another thing to attack somebody like Gen. Petraeus," Bush said.

Pariser responded to the president, saying Bush lied about the cause for war in Iraq.

"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," Pariser said. "The president has no credibility on Iraq: he lied repeatedly to the American people to get us into the war. ... Right now, there are about 168,000 American soldiers in Iraq, caught in the crossfire of that country's unwinnable civil war, and the president has betrayed their trust and the trust of the American people."

FOX News' Molly Hooper contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html

KOS doesn't like it.

http://dailykos.com/story/2007/9/20/104634/134

[WinCrimson 61]

I know he'll be able to sleep easier now.

What a waste of time. It's not like there are pressing issues that need the Senate's attention, right? Next? Same-sex marriage, slavery apologies, and flag burning.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Odd message to send the voters, don't ya think? Every Presidential candidate is FOR calling the General a traitor, while the vast majority of those in the Senate are against.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Don't the Republicans in congress have anything better to do than waste the country's time? This congressman should be voted out of office. What a joke.

[autiger4life 3]

"Senators Clinton and Obama need to decide whether they’re running for America, or running for MoveOn.org. If Clinton and Obama cannot bring themselves to take a stand against a vicious attack on the man leading our forces in Iraq, why should American voters believe they are capable of demonstrating the leadership we need in a commander in chief?” said Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan.

"Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief," said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Running for America or running for Moveon.org? Oh c'mon, this is ridiculous. Yes, how dare a senator question a military commander. They must be a traitor, or wait, maybe they are doing their job as a law maker to try to find the truth and question what they are told. The more we tell people that questioning and calling people out is bad, the worse off the country becomes. I respect Petraues, but I also respect people who are unafraid to call him out on what they think he is lying about.

[Tigermike 3,055]

"Senators Clinton and Obama need to decide whether they’re running for America, or running for MoveOn.org. If Clinton and Obama cannot bring themselves to take a stand against a vicious attack on the man leading our forces in Iraq, why should American voters believe they are capable of demonstrating the leadership we need in a commander in chief?” said Republican National Committee chairman Mike Duncan.

"Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief," said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Running for America or running for Moveon.org? Oh c'mon, this is ridiculous. Yes, how dare a senator question a military commander. They must be a traitor, or wait, maybe they are doing their job as a law maker to try to find the truth and question what they are told. The more we tell people that questioning and calling people out is bad, the worse off the country becomes. I respect Petraues, but I also respect people who are unafraid to call him out on what they think he is lying about.

Get a grip on reality. No one has said anything about NOT questioning the military or anyone else for that matter. Are you saying the questions asked by the dims were strictly for information? They were not partisan in any way? Those questions were not total BS? The Dim senators who asked questions were mad that the general gave an honest report. They had their panties in a wad and had been whining & running off at the mouth for over a week before the report was even made public. So cut out the sanctimonious BS.

[WAR EAGLE!!! 0]

I think it was a nice move. I agree that this is a little trivial and there are more pressing issues that should be addressed, but smart move by Cornyn. He got the all of the democrats on record on what they actually believe so when they all go for their normal flip flopping, there will be record of what they voted on. However, a simple matter called "facts" have never stopped the dems from flip flopping before....

[AURaptor 1,126]

Don't the Republicans in congress have anything better to do than waste the country's time? This congressman should be voted out of office. What a joke.

You mean Hillary should be voted out of office. I agree.

[autiger4life 3]

Get a grip on reality. No one has said anything about NOT questioning the military or anyone else for that matter. Are you saying the questions asked by the dims were strictly for information? They were not partisan in any way? Those questions were not total BS? The Dim senators who asked questions were mad that the general gave an honest report. They had their panties in a wad and had been whining & running off at the mouth for over a week before the report was even made public. So cut out the sanctimonious BS.

First, people have made a big deal about him being questioned, acting as if he was above that. Second, do you not think Patreasus' act was partisan? Just because he is in the military does not mean he doesn't know how to play politics. Don't be so naive to think that just because he is in the military he would not use his power to sway votes to his side. Yes, he is served his country and deserves respect, but that doesn't mean he can't lie.

[Auburn85 432]

"First, people have made a big deal about him being questioned, acting as if he was above that. Second, do you not think Patreasus' act was partisan? Just because he is in the military does not mean he doesn't know how to play politics. Don't be so naive to think that just because he is in the military he would not use his power to sway votes to his side. Yes, he is served his country and deserves respect, but that doesn't mean he can't lie. "

The same can be said with anyone living under the sun.

[autiger4life 3]

The same can be said with anyone living under the sun.

Thank you for furthering my point, anyone under the sun can lie for political reasons so if people think he is then there should not be anything wrong in expousing that. In fact, if they did not expose it they would be letting the American people down.

I am not saying Patreus lied, I don't know enough about it one way or another. I am saying republicans are getting mad at the left for attacking him just because it hurts their cause, and then the republicans back him just because it helps there cause. Had he come out and said it was going terribly, the sides would flip flop. Its, true and everyone know its, they will simply agree with whoever helps them, and that is both sides.

[RunInRed 16,492]

Don't the Republicans in congress have anything better to do than waste the country's time? This congressman should be voted out of office. What a joke.

You mean Hillary should be voted out of office. I agree.

Well, atleast someone gets it:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., painted himself Friday as the change agent for the political atmosphere he said has plagued Washington and created decades-old stalemates on healthcare reform and fundamental changes in energy policy.

Addressing a crowd of more than 3,000 people on the central campus of Iowa State University, Obama said he will change politics and put an end to the games the U.S. Congress and the White House have been pulling if elected president.

"You know, we spent time (Thursday) debating a MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times instead of debating what we were going to do about Iraq," he said. "That is the kind of game-playing that we've got to get over."

[AFTiger 282]

"You know, we spent time (Thursday) debating a MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times instead of debating what we were going to do about Iraq," he said. "That is the kind of game-playing that we've got to get over."

Actually, a debate on the origins and effects of Moveon.org would be more productive than a debate on surrendering to Al Qeda.

[RunInRed 16,492]

"You know, we spent time (Thursday) debating a MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times instead of debating what we were going to do about Iraq," he said. "That is the kind of game-playing that we've got to get over."

Actually, a debate on the origins and effects of Moveon.org would be more productive than a debate on surrendering to Al Qeda.

Only the select knowledgeable few can spin an Iraqi Civil War into a battle against Al Queada.

[Tigermike 3,055]

"You know, we spent time (Thursday) debating a MoveOn.org ad in the New York Times instead of debating what we were going to do about Iraq," he said. "That is the kind of game-playing that we've got to get over."

Actually, a debate on the origins and effects of Moveon.org would be more productive than a debate on surrendering to Al Qeda.

Only the select knowledgeable few can spin an Iraqi Civil War into a battle against Al Queada.

Is Al Queada not there? Has Al Queada not said that "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign."?

It is impossible to completely segregate al Qaeda's attacks in Iraq from sectarian violence because al Qaeda's explicit goal is to create sectarian violence to destabilize the government so they can establish a safe haven within the country.

The quotes below from top al-Qaeda leaders show how they view the Iraq war; and the quotes from top military commanders show what they have learned in the theater of combat.

Iraq and the Coming Caliphate

Note: Al-Qaeda’s endgame is the establishment of the “caliphate,” an Islamic super-state that would be ruled according to a Taliban-like version of Islamic law and that would be at war with the non-Muslim world. In the below excerpts, Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri affirm not only the centrality of Iraq to their war against the West, but also show that they view a defeat of the U.S. as only the beginning.

Ayman al-Zawahiri

Letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

Recovered during military operations in Iraq

July 9, 2005

The Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or emirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate -- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq....The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage...the clash with Israel...The mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal.

Osama bin Laden

To the Muslims in Iraq in Particular and the [islamic] Nation in General

Audio Message Posted on Jihadist Web Sites

Dec. 28, 2004

I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers [iraq]. The world’s millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate…

Ayman al-Zawahiri

Interview with Sheikh Ayman al-Zawahiri

Video released by as-Sahab Media

May 5, 2007

The critical importance of the Jihad in Iraq and Afghanistan becomes clear, because the defeat of the Crusaders there -- soon, Allah permitting -- will lead to the setting up of two mujahid emirates which will be launch pads for the liberation of the Islamic lands and the establishment of the Caliphate.

A Democratic Iraq Challenges al-Qaeda’s Ideology

Note: Al-Qaeda leaders have acknowledged that U.S. success in Iraq, and a democracy in that country, poses a direct challenge to their own project for the Muslim world.

Yusuf al-Ayyeri, deceased al-Qaeda leader in Saudi Arabia

The Future of Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula after the fall of Baghdad.

Excerpts extracted from Amir Taheri, Al-Qaeda’s Agenda in Iraq, New York Post, Sept. 4, 2003

It is not the American war machine that should be of the utmost concern to Muslims. What threatens the future of Islam, in fact its very survival, is American democracy… The end of Ba’ath rule in Iraq is good for Islam and Muslims. Where the banner of Ba’ath has fallen, shall rise the banner of Islam… secularist democracy [is] far more dangerous to Islam… If democracy comes to Iraq, the next target [for democratization] would be the whole of the Muslim world.

The Importance of Iraq to al-Qaeda

Note: As the below quotes demonstrate, al-Qaeda leaders have made no secret of the fact that they view Iraq as the most critical battlefield in their war against the West.

Ayman al-Zawahiri

Realities of the Conflict Between Islam and Unbelief

Speech released by as-Sahab Media

December 2006

I repeat what I mentioned previously: the backing of the Jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq today is to back the most important battlefields in which the Crusade against Islam and Muslims is in progress. And the defeat of the Crusaders there -- soon, Allah permitting -- will have a far-reaching effect on the future of the Muslim Ummah, Allah willing.

Pulling Out Will Not Appease al-Qaeda

Note: Some people argue that the terrorist threat against the West is rooted in our presence in Iraq. The statements of al-Qaeda leaders suggest the exact opposite: pulling out of Iraq alone will not end their war against us.

Adam Gadhan, aka Azzam al-Amriki

Legitimate Demands

Video released by as-Sahab Media

May 29, 2007

And let us be clear: A pull-out from Iraq alone, in the absence of compliance with the remainder of our legitimate demands, will get you nowhere, and will not save you from our strikes. So stop wasting your time and trying to save face with these futile farcical maneuvers on a -- on Capitol Hill and start making some serious moves.

The View of Top U.S. Military Commanders

Note: Top U.S. military commanders, who are charged with providing accurate and objective information on questions like this, agree that Iraq is a central front in al-Qaeda’s war against the West.

General David Petraeus

Commander of Multi National Forces Iraq

May 8, 2007

Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda’s global campaign.

General David Petraeus

Commander of Multi National Forces Iraq

July 11, 2007

The enemy in Iraq that is causing the horrific attacks, that is igniting the sectarian violence, that is causing the mass casualties and damage of the infrastructure by and large is al Qaeda.

Lieutenant General Michael Maples

Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency

February 27, 2007

Al Qaeda is the largest and most active of the Iraq-based terrorist groups.

General Michael Hayden

Director of the CIA

January 18, 2007

I strongly believe [that U.S. failure in Iraq] would lead to al Qaeda with what it is they said is their goal there, which is the foundations of the caliphate, and in operational terms for us, a safe haven from which then to plan and conduct attacks against the West.

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner

Spokesman for Multi National Forces Iraq

July 11, 2007

Al Qaeda leaders have declared Iraq their central front. Al Qaeda in Iraq and its affiliates are the greatest source of spectacular attacks and are fueling sectarian violence. Our intelligence community, the government of Iraq and the Multinational Force all assess al Qaeda in Iraq as the main near-term threat.

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner

Spokesman for Multi National Forces Iraq

July 11, 2007

Between 80 and 90 percent of the suicide attacks in Iraq are being carried out by foreign-born al Qaeda terrorists.

Brigadier General Kevin Bergner

Spokesman for Multi National Forces Iraq

Quotes on MNF-I’s web site, July 13, 2007

[T]here is no question that al Qaeda is the principal fueler of violence and sectarian attacks.

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publication...m?doc_id=511298

[RunInRed 16,492]

With all due respect you are officially now just either 1) dumb or 2) so drunk on the right wing kool-aid that you are unable to think clearly.

Here are some facts for you:

1) The people who attacked us on 9/11 were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Al Qaeda in Iraq didn't exist before our invasion. The case for war was built on exaggerated fears and empty evidence - so much so that Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, decided to vote against the war after he read the National Intelligence Estimate.

2) The solution in Iraq is political not military.

3) Every sensible candidate I know calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops has clearly stated that while we should draw the majority of combat troops down, we will leave a force there to specifically target Al-Queda threats.

"We will need to retain some forces in Iraq and the region. We'll continue to strike at al Qaeda in Iraq. We'll protect our forces as they leave, and we will continue to protect U.S. diplomats and facilities. If - but only if - Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces. But we will set our own direction and our own pace, and our direction must be out of Iraq. The future of our military, our foreign policy, and our national purpose cannot be hostage to the inaction of the Iraqi government. "

[Tigermike 3,055]

With all due respect you are officially now just either 1) dumb or 2) so drunk on the right wing kool-aid that you are unable to think clearly.

Is Al Queada not there in Iraq? Has Al Queada not said that "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign."? Answer those questions.

It's obvious you are the one drunk on the left wing kool-aid and like most all on the left are so ate up with Bush hatred you gave up the ability to think clearly at all.

[RunInRed 16,492]

With all due respect you are officially now just either 1) dumb or 2) so drunk on the right wing kool-aid that you are unable to think clearly.

Is Al Queada not there in Iraq? Has Al Queada not said that "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign."? Answer those questions.

It's obvious you are the one drunk on the left wing kool-aid and like most all on the left are so ate up with Bush hatred you gave up the ability to think clearly at all.

So I'm "ate up"? hah. Well, I'll answer your questions - although I kinda feel it's like running into a brick wall repeadetly. For the last time...

I'm not sure who you are quoting from Al-Queda about Iraq being the central campaign but it doesn't really matter. The fact is, pockets of Al-Queda are in Iraq as they are in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc etc. So yes, I'm suggesting we leave a small force in the country to target them - but this by no means includes 100k+ US Troops to fight a civil war.

Again, this is about the US not about George Bush and his stubborness. And no, I will not accept his suggestion that there are only two choices in Iraq - stay the course or "cut and run". All clear thinking people know there are better ways to handle this situation.

But if you want to bury your head in the sand with Bush and hope for the best while our troops continue to come home wounded - or not come home at all - while having the US being held hostage to the Iraqi governments/people ability to act - then go ahead. But some of us want a different choice.

I'm done talking to you on this subject until you can bring anything of value to this conversation.

[Tigermike 3,055]

With all due respect you are officially now just either 1) dumb or 2) so drunk on the right wing kool-aid that you are unable to think clearly.

Is Al Queada not there in Iraq? Has Al Queada not said that "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign."? Answer those questions.

It's obvious you are the one drunk on the left wing kool-aid and like most all on the left are so ate up with Bush hatred you gave up the ability to think clearly at all.

So I'm "ate up"? (yes) hah. Well, I'll answer your questions - although I kinda feel it's like running into a brick wall repeadetly. For the last time... (That's repeatedly)

I'm not sure who you are quoting from Al-Queda about Iraq being the central campaign but it doesn't really matter. (I provided a link. Try a Google search there is plenty of info) The fact is, pockets of Al-Queda are in Iraq as they are in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, etc etc. So yes, I'm suggesting we leave a small force in the country to target them - but this by no means includes 100k+ US Troops to fight a civil war. (You are a military expert? No just walking in lock step with the leftist)

Again, this is about the US not about George Bush and his stubborness. (That's stubbornness) And no, I will not accept his suggestion that there are only two choices in Iraq - stay the course or "cut and run". All clear thinking people know there are better ways to handle this situation. (Can't we just all get along? Al Queada doesn't want to get along. They want you dead. They want you in subjection. They want to rape your wife, sister, daughter, mother! Yes rape is OK for Muslim soldiers.)

But if you want to bury your head in the sand with Bush and hope for the best while our troops continue to come home wounded - or not come home at all - while having the US being held hostage to the Iraqi governments/people ability to act - then go ahead. But some of us want a different choice. (Your head is the one buried deeply in denial. I am not with Bush, I am saying these folks must be defeated. Surrender and appeasement to these folks is not an option.)

I'm done talking to you on this subject until you can bring anything of value to this conversation. (As if you have?)

Is Al Queada not there in Iraq? YES

Has Al Queada not said that "Iraq is, in fact, the central front of al Qaeda's global campaign."? YES