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.
This is in response to the Moveon.org campaign against General Petraeus last week and is simply an official expression of support of the General who is commanding our troops in Iraq. It is beyond me that there would even be Senators that would vote Nay on this, all of whom are Democrats.
It's very illuminating to see how influenced these Democrats are by the Moveon and "Kos Krowd" and cannot see how they look to the vast majority of the American population.
I give credit to Baucus and Tester for voting in support of General Patraeus. Clinton is clearly influenced by Moveon and the "Kos Krowd" and Obama is too big a weenie and coward to even vote.
This will come back to haunt both Clinton and Obama when the majority of the people start paying attention to the Presidential election.
MoveOn has said that "they bought this party."
ReplyDeleteI wonder if they realize they got a pig in a poke?
72 Senators (including some Democrats) voted for this resolution. Moveon has the right to say what they think. They have to be prepared to accept the reasonable criticism their extremist views spawn though. Colby and Shane seem to think the Senate and Congress shouldn't exercise their own free speech rights to critique a swipe at an honorable man before he even spoke.
ReplyDeleteI see that the antiwar libs also lost a vote on attempting to control troop levels too. Their bill to require more leave for troops before redeployment would be supportable if the men weren't very needed. Reducing troop levels further endangers the men there right now. You may as well reduce their armor or ammo as pull guys away. Both cut available resources. It wasn't done out of concern for our troops anyway. It was an attempt to micromanage the war and gain political points. Nice!
Members of Congress have a First Amendment right to express their opinions about MoveOn.org all they want. But they have no right to pretend that their personal opinions are in any way related to their official duties. Congress as an institution has no business condemning citizens for exercising their First Amendment rights.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think people who pretend they are conservatives would be able to understand this sort of thing.
Crisp-- You’re so full of it. Who are you to say what is the proper purview of Congress? They burned your ass and you just can’t get over it. Drop us another line when you get appointed to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteKudos to John Tester for once again repudiating MoveON and voting his conscience. The more he does that, the better he will represent Montana.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the extreme left sees representative democracy as the election of a directed agent, that is, Tester should vote as MoveON tells him to.
I'm glad to see Johnny T breaking away from that.
Now even the newspaper that printed the leftist smear is backing away from “free speech”:
ReplyDelete“...the ad appears to fly in the face of an internal advertising acceptability manual that says, ‘We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.’”
--Clark Hoyt, Public Editor
New York times
The reporting-editing departments are also backpedaling, saying they never communicate with the people in advertising: “We don’t consult, we don’t talk, we don’t share information.” They just had no idea such a slanderous ad was going to run!
So why did the New York Times cut the leftist scum a break on the advertising price? Oh, you see, that was a mistake! An advertising sales representative just accidentally quoted a price that was a mere $77,000 too low, according to the Times’ public editor.
Rockin Robin,
ReplyDeleteIt isn't for me to say what the purview of Congress is. It's for the Constitution to say. You should read it, if you can tear yourself away form MoveOn.org ads long enough.