Still waiting for that house cleaning to happen Nancy. Still waiting...

Don't disagree with you - would like to see everyone out that benefits financially from these deals voted out of office, including Pelosi and Murtha. Just wondering, how wealthy do you believe Cheney has become during his tenure as vice-president? And would you agree that his wealth is the direct result of his association with the oil industry and Halliburton? In a time of war, do you find that acceptable? I know I am going to be attacked by IH8eeveryone Keefer, AAR and those who believe Cheney does no wrong - ever.

Sunny,

How wealthy do you believe VP Cheney has become while serving as Vice President? Are you aware that he and his wife donated nearly $8 million to charity last year? How many people do you personally know that donate that kind of money? On the other hand, we have the Clintons who donate Bill's used underwear and Algore who donated something like $350 the year he ran against George Bush for President. Give me a break!!!

I know I am going to be attacked by IH8eeveryone Keefer, AAR and those who believe Cheney does no wrong - ever.

Please go back through the B4B archives and see how many quotes you can find from keefer, AAR, me or any Conservative to the effect that Cheney "does no wrong - ever". Take your time -- I'll wait.

Sorry, my error. That should have been nearly $7 million, no $8 million. Chump change -- really.

Sunny,

Actually. Cheney has given 100% of his salary to charity and walked away from a half billion dollars in Haliburton options to become vice-president.

Do you feel any shame in your ignorance?

READ before writing.

Good responses Spook and Kahn!

Sunny,
Let's answer the real underlying question: If the left had the goods on the VP, don't you think they'd have exploited those goods for political gain by now? Since Spook and Kahn are correct with their facts, the left cannot use altruism (maybe altruism is a bit of a stretch, so what about generosity?) against conservatives.

Dick Cheney. Can anyone tell me why this poor man is so vilified by a certain segment of the American population? Has he not, deep in his faulty heart, always put the best interests of the people he 'serves' first & foremost?

Why oh why is Cheney so misunderstood?

CO, because the left vilifies anyone that believes in capitalism, and when you have a politician that is in the spotlight as much as the VP, he becomes an easy target.

So why not vilify the hollywood types that contribute far less than Cheney? The Sean Moron Penns of the world have equal $, so why wouldn't the left go after them? Or are they protected attack dogs of the left and immune from scrutiny?

If you can afford to donate $7 million to charity, you have to loaded to begin with. Considering that this man spend most of his career in government work, and only a few as CEO of Halliburton, where do you think he earned such a vast amount of money? I am not saying that he has done anything illegal, but I do question the morality. Getting rich from this war while we have the troops (that you so strongly support) dying daily doesn't seem right to me. I have not researched what Clinton or Gore give to charity, but I don't believe they are getting filthy rich from this war. Now, tell me Cheney has not profited from this war.

This is how Democrats conduct business - it is how they get rich, and enrich their families.

   This is how virtually all politicians conduct business today. They continue to get rich while driving our country closer to financial collapse, putting our children's future at risk. In case you missed it, the national debt crossed the 9 trillion dollar mark the first week of September.(oddly, there was a point on 9/11 when the debt was 9 billion, 11 trillion) I find it sad that we the people do nothing more than bicker about who is more at fault. The fact is that both Democrats and Republicans are to blame. They are all traitors and thieves, and should all be removed without delay.

navydad states "CO, because the left vilifies anyone that believes in capitalism, and when you have a politician that is in the spotlight as much as the VP, he becomes an easy target."

You are so wrong about what you call the "left" vilifying capitalism. However, filling the coffers off the backs of our soldiers risking their lives everyday for your opportunity to get rich is just wrong. I have no problem with accumulating wealth - and keeping it if that is what you want to do. I detest the give away programs of welfare, title 19 for children born out of wedlock, for the rediculous so called "prescription" program passed by the Bush administration, which is corporate welfare for the drug industry - to name a few. My senator is Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative senators in the US, and I completely support his initiatives. So, navydad, you too are wrong - again.

Now, tell me Cheney has not profited from this war.

Sunny, how about instead you show us how he HAS profited from the war. I've never seen any credible evidence to suggest that he hasn't severed all ties with Halliburton, and the millions that he donated wasn't wealth that he actually had in the bank, it was Halliburton stock options being held in a blind trust that were liquidated and donated to charity.

Sorry there was an error on my post at 12:57. The debt figures for 9/11 were 9 trillion, 11 billion.

sunny - Cheney has not profited from this war.

AGAIN, besides giving ALL his proceeds to charity he walked away from a half billion dollars in option to become VP. Being VP COST him money.

Jeezz, nice innuendo but you are so ignorant. He has not spent "MOST" of his adult life in public sevice. He was a pretty savvy oil industry guy. Do you even know what Haliburton does? Why they were the only ones able to bid some of the government contracts? These contracts were not soul source, they were soul bid.

But, hey nice way to distract us from scum Murtha. By throwing baseless and unsubstantiated attacks at a very generous and public minded man. A man who's service in this post cost him personally more than half a billion dollars.

Why not tax that squirrels brain of yours and look it up. Not on KOS where you'll just find more innuendo - but look for the calls from the left wing press that he dump his options while still a candidate. Or maybe his publicly published records.

Note - another baseless attack from you and I will not respond. I'll just assume you're an asshole.

Note - another baseless attack from you and I will not respond. I'll just assume you're an asshole.

Kahn, I'm beginning to think that's a safe assumption.

Retired Spook, not much of a leap is it?

You think he's actually a new ignorant lefty or one of the regulars?

Kahn,

Hard to tell, they're basically all the same. Their, and Al Gore's "science" is if you repeat it enough times it will become true. The actual facts don't count, just how often the empty skulls repeat it. Forget about any facts, just present delusional thoughts and repeat. The the next KOS kid will perpetuate. Bingo, Libtard fact.

Parrots.

yeah, yeah, yeah, Kahn and Spook. Keep telling yourselves that garbage.

OT, but worth noting:

About two hours ago, the United States Senate voted on the Cornyn Amendment to the 2008 Defense Authorization Act, which stated:

"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 Amendment passed by a vote of 72-25. Guess who voted against the Amendment, refusing to condemn the attack by Move-On.org against General Petraeus?

That's right, the following are all Democrats:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

I am disgusted that my two Senators would vote against supporting General Petraeus and condemning the Move-On.org ad and others who would attack the honor and integrity of the United States Armed Forces. Can we call them un-patriotic traitors now?

"Can we call them un-patriotic traitors now?"

Yes. And it's retroactive.

They said it themselves. Progress in Iraq is bad for the Democrats, so they have to try and stop and/or discredit the man responsable for progress in Iraq.

OK Sunny, thats your comeback to facts? You are now officially an asshole.

JB and A-10, I hope a lot of independent and moderate Democrat voters are paying attention. And Kahn, if you're monitoring this thread, the day of reckoning draws one notch closer.

This non-binding, we are sorry Gen. Petreaus move on.org is so bad, resolution is so democrat I can't believe you guys eat this shit up.

I'm sorry sleepy.... what?

And this side discussion is a distraction. Jack Murtha is still corrupt.

As A-10 noted, the ammendment voted upon stated "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."

How broadly should that be considered?

Kahn, wow, you have such a potty mouth, and a pretty immature manner of expressing yourself. Guess that is the best you can do. You are officially lacking in communication skills.

Guess who voted against the Amendment, refusing to condemn the attack by Move-On.org against General Petraeus?....That's right, the following are all Democrats: A-10

Those aren't just Democrats. Those are THE Democrats. The leadership of the Moveon.org party.

This list should be in every Republican '08 campaign ad.

...and a pretty immature manner of expressing yourself. Guess that is the best you can do. - sunny

And then earlier in the thread, I noticed the following:

yeah, yeah, yeah, Kahn and Spook. Keep telling yourselves that garbage - sunny

Well done sunny!

Just wondering, how wealthy do you believe Cheney has become during his tenure as vice-president? And would you agree that his wealth is the direct result of his association with the oil industry and Halliburton?

MoveOn talking point--another lie swallowed by granny sunny hook, line, and sinker.

btw, Kahn, sunny is a gal; she claims to be a grandmother. Let's pray she doesn't get too close to her grandkids; this is one whacked-out old broad!

Dick Cheney. Can anyone tell me why this poor man is so vilified by a certain segment of the American population? Has he not, deep in his faulty heart, always put the best interests of the people he 'serves' first & foremost?

Why oh why is Cheney so misunderstood?

Sorry, CO, did you say something? No? My bad...

Notice how the lefties deflected from the thread topic. Of course, that is their usual ploy.

You're exactly right, Kahn. Murtha is, and always will be, corrupt.

A-10: Thanks for OT post. The GOP will and must take advantage of this latest unpatriotic vote.

Let's answer the real underlying question: If the left had the goods on the VP, don't you think they'd have exploited those goods for political gain by now?

Shoot, navydad, the left exploits lies about the GOP for political gain--when has the left ever let the facts get in their way? I mean, heck, ol' sunny is parroting every lie that's been used against Cheney, and the old hag actually believes what she's posting.

sunny, I would think a grandmother would have better things to do than to go to an opposition blog and spew redundant talking-point lies. I guess your family has distanced themselves from you? I could hardly blame them if they have--you're a first-rate kook. A real nutjob. You and plainlamejane--two peas in a pod...

"Can we call them un-patriotic traitors now?" Posted by: A-10

Yes.

Murtha is an idiot, so what?

The Republican Congress was a disgrace too...

Sunny........
You are now officially...pathetic....!!
Also, libs are never sunny!!!

This list should be in every Republican '08 campaign ad.
Posted by: neocon [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 20, 2007 05:03 PM

Why would Republicans want to bring this up with 71% of the electorate that disagrees with the President. This is a list of true statesmen that saw through the Presidents pimping of a military officer for his own political gain. Our founding fathers took great care to keep active military from setting political agenda for fear of a dictatorship.

Swiftboating military veterans as Kerry, Max Cleland and Murtha is OK, but question the logic of neocon military mouthpiece and your labeled by the wingnuts as un-American and traitor.

Freedom1: "Can we call them un-patriotic traitors now?" Posted by: A-10

Yes.

If that's the case, is it also appropriate to denounce the insinuations that John McCain's judgement was adversely affected by his tenure as a prisoner of North Vietnam? Is it also appropriate to denounce insinuations that John Kerry didn't deserve the medals the Navy granted to him? Is it also inappropriate to suggest that Max Clelland was not a war hero? What about Gen. Zinni, Gen. Shinsecki, Gen. Batiste, Gen. Eaton, Gen. Odom, Gen. Clark, Gen. Korb, Gen. Powell, and so many others? In short, can we PLEASE back off from the assumption that everyone is of like mind on what to do in Iraq and elsewhere? Certainly, not all of these guys are traitors. And if they are, expect more.

The MoveOn.org ad was way over the top. No question about it. But it was a freakin' ad. And it doesn't exist in a vacuum -- there have been many other accusations that I have found at least equally reprehensible. Really, where do you draw the line?

*Another example of the Left-Islamist unholy alliance-*

Left, CAIR Attack Peter King And Rudy Giuliani - for telling the TRUTH!

(Via Lgf) In the Politico interview: [Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.] King said: “Unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country, there’s too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully, we should be finding out how we can infiltrate, we should be much more aggressive in law enforcement.”

In response: Unindicted Hamas co-conspirators CAIR and the Democratic Party attacked:

The congressman was denounced by the DC-based Council on American- Islamic Relations, a group that has long accused King of lobbing unfair attacks against American Muslims.

“We call on Republican leaders and other people of conscience to repudiate Representative King’s bigoted remarks and to support the civil and religious rights of all Americans,” said CAIR official Corey Saylor.

Both the Muslim group and the Democratic party called on Giuliani to drop King from the campaign.

Better link for above - Peter King, "...not enough Muslim leaders cooperate with law enforcement." So true!

Btw,
Ricorun, it should be obvious. General Petraeus is the LEADER of our American military forces in Iraq while we are at WAR! He was called a traitor. Our ENEMIES heard it. Those traitorous Democrats REFUSED to CONDEMN the ad claiming that Petraeus was a traitor which tacitly implies that these Democrats regard Petraeus as a traitor. Therefore, those Democrats are TRAITORS!

Posted by: Freedom1 at September 21, 2007 12:55 AM

Well said, Freedom1!

Ya know, I have a feeling something good is about to happen, I don't know what it is, but for the last two weeks I have felt it, and have wanted to share it, but was just reluctant, so I'm finally getting it off my chest now!!

Something good is coming, I can feel it!!

Jeremiah

"Something good is coming, I can feel it!!" Posted by: Jeremiah

I hope so, Jeremiah. I hope so!
:)

Jerimiah, you know... I think so too.

The election is about fourteen months away. I think that the Democrats showed their hand too early. They hate Bush, we get that. They're willing to sacrifice our troops for domestic politics. Well, more and more people are seeing that. This latest MoveOn blunder exposed them more than they realize.

And if Obama's and Hillary's ideas are so great, why haven't they put them into legislation? They are actually serving in the Senate. They do actually have the power and the responsibility to act now.

What if they lose? Does that mean their brilliant ideas will be lost forever? Why wait a year and a half?

This is a list of true statesmen that saw through the Presidents pimping of a military officer for his own political gain.

No, plaindumbbroadjane--this is a list of pinko lefties who are pandering to the money, the MoveOn money. And you know why Barack Earbama's name wasn't on the list? Well, he was in the building, as he had voted earlier, but he skipped this vote, afraid of how it would reflect on his record, since he's still in the running for the nomination. Ol' Big-ears Ubama ain't no dummy...

This is a list of true statesmen that saw through the Presidents pimping of a military officer for his own political gain. - plainjane

Once again, leave it to a liberal with a severe case of BDS to miss the point completely of why Patreaus testified. Read and weep plainjane:

54 percent of respondents said they believe Petreaus’ plan for removing troops is the right pace or too quick, while only 33 percent view the withdrawal as moving too slowly. Also, 52 percent of those polled said the plan withdraws the right amount or too many troops, while 36 percent said it removes too few troops.

a higher percentage of respondents now view the top U.S. military commander in Iraq favorably (61 percent) than before his testimony (52 percent), while only 22 percent view him unfavorably.

MoveOn is so into itself that they cannot help but to seek the spotlight and shout whatever crap is most pressing on their mind, regardless of how it negatively impacts them and the politicians that pander to them. Those politicians are painting themselves into a corner and will have to answer to either MoveOn when they distance themselves from the MoveOn agenda or the opposition who will (hopefully) call them out on their unpopular positions. It’s a strategy full of pitfalls. Their only way out is to lie (something they’ve excelled at).

Can you say – self destruct?

plainjane,

You are wrong on so many levels.

"Why would Republicans want to bring this up with 71% of the electorate that disagrees with the President."

You assume that if the President's approval rating is 29%, then 71% disagree with him. But why do the 71% disagree? Do many disagree because they want the President to take even stronger steps to fight terrorism? Do many disagree because they want the President to take off the gloves and fight back against the liberals who are undermining our efforts to defend our nation? How many really disagree because they want us to lose the Global War on Terror? My guess is the 30-35% of Americans that consider themselves a liberal/Democrat. The rest (40%) probably fall into the "I wish the President would do more" category.

"This is a list of true statesmen that saw through the Presidents pimping of a military officer for his own political gain."

If the President really was solely interested in political gain, he would have given up the fight against global terrorism years ago. That he hasn't is indication that his true intentions are to defend the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, as stated in his Oath of Office.

These "true statesmen" are the ones who are the ones only interested in political gain. They are cowards and are afraid to alienate their Moveon.org base which is a major source of their funding. A "true statesman" does not go on record that they don't support General Petraeus and they don't condemn attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and the men and women serving in the United States Armed Forces. A coward does that.

But what did we expect. Senator Reid has declared the war lost and has publically stated that General Petraeus has not been truthful in previous statements. Senator Durbin has compared our service members to the Nazi, Soviets, and Pol Pot. Senator Kerry has accused them of "terrorizing women and children in the dark of night". Senator Clinton thinks you have to suspend disbelief when you listen to General Petraeus. Senator Schumer has called them incompetent and ineffective. The list goes on and on.

I guess the list of "true statesmen" all fall into the "I voted for supporting General Petraeus before I voted against supporting him" category since they all voted to confim him as Commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq.

"Our founding fathers took great care to keep active military from setting political agenda for fear of a dictatorship."

Correct. But you are implying that General Petraeus is setting political agenda. He isn't. He was reporting on the facts on the ground in Iraq, on the progress that is being made, and what we need to do in the future to continue our success militarily.

"Swiftboating military veterans as Kerry, Max Cleland and Murtha is OK, but question the logic of neocon military mouthpiece and your labeled by the wingnuts as un-American and traitor."

LOL. None of the facts concerning Senator's Kerry's actions in Vietnam revealed by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have been disproven. On the contrary, Senator Kerry has had to change his story about some of the events that are "seared, seared in his memory". Senator Kerry has still failed to sign the SF 180 releasing his service records. What does he have to hide? Perhaps that his discharge was less than honorable because of his visit to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese and his false testimony in front of Congress while still an officer in the Naval Reserve? Perhaps because some or all of his military decorations were based on reports he filed detailing his exploits? Inquiring minds want to know. Today marks the 962nd day since Senator Kerry promised to sign the SF 180. What is he waiting for?

As for Senator Cleland, I am sorry that he lost parts of both legs and his right arm. However, these wounds were not as a result of combat, but because of an accident that occured when, then CPT Clelend, was getting off a helicopter to have "a few beers with friends". To parlay his wounds into a Senate seat and to claim swiftboating when it is pointed out that these wounds were not combat related is a slap in the face of all those who have been killed or wounded in combat.

Finally, Representative Murtha is a disgrace to the Marine Corps (I say that as a former Marine). He is the most corrupt member of the House of Representatives (however, Congressman Jefferson and others are trying to wrest that title away from him). To proclaim that the Haditha Marines were guilty of murder before any investigation was conducted was unethical, immoral, and against the very basis of justice in America, that you are innoocent until proven guilty. Congressman Murtha made these comments for pure political gain and he is to be soundly critized for his actions.

Moveon.org and its benefactors in the Senate are not "question(ing) the logic of neocon military mouthpiece", they are slandering a honest, dedicated, and decorated expert on counter-terrorism because of their hatred for President Bush and America. This was not an exercise in logic, it was a report to Congress on the progress that is being made, as required by Congress. For Moveon.org to defame General Petraeus before he even testified, and for those on the list of "true statesmen" not to vote for their support of the General and not vote to condemn the attacks on the General and the men and women in the United States Armed Force speaks volumes on the character, integrity, and honor of the 25. They lack character, they have no integrity, and they wouldn't know honor if it jumped up and kicked them in the a**.

That you would defend the vote of "The 25 Traitors" also speaks volumes on your character, integrity, and honor. I hope you sleep well knowing that there are patriotic men and women serving in America's military who are willing to sacrifice their lives to keep you safe, even though you don't deserve it.

Freedom1: Ricorun, it should be obvious. General Petraeus is the LEADER of our American military forces in Iraq while we are at WAR! He was called a traitor. Our ENEMIES heard it. Those traitorous Democrats REFUSED to CONDEMN the ad claiming that Petraeus was a traitor which tacitly implies that these Democrats regard Petraeus as a traitor. Therefore, those Democrats are TRAITORS!

As I see it, the ad basically claimed that if Petraeus didn't present the evidence and argue his case in the manner they wanted him to, he was betraying the American people is not only ridiculous but dispicable. It's one thing to question the way evidence is compiled, or to question the strategy, but it's another to call into question his honor and integrity.

But as I mentioned in my previous comment, and as A10 also mention just above, the MoveOn add is not the first time something like this has happened. So I think it would have been appropriate for the ammendment to condemn all instances, not just one.

It was a pretty cool political coup, though.

A-10,
Thanks again for your service to the Country, and to us here @ B4B.

One correction; I honestly don't think of you as a "former" Marine; you're still fighting the good fight for us; that's what Marines do.

rico,
"ad basically claimed that if Petraeus didn't present the evidence"

Didn't the ad come out before the General gave testimony? Isn't that calling into question the honesty, honor and integrity of a Commanding General in time of War without evidence? Isn’t that producing propaganda for the enemy in concert with the enemy? Why isn’t that treason?

And why isn't it treasonous to condone this act by not condemning it, publically, forcefully, and unequivocally?

It’s not just despicable …

Ricorun,

"So I think it would have been appropriate for the ammendment to condemn all instances, not just one."

Read the text of the Ammendment:

"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."

Although we all know that it was in response to the Moveon.org ad, they did condemn ALL personal attacks.

Here you have "The 25 Traitors" voting against condemning personal attacks. As a result of that vote, we must assume that they approve of such attacks since they did not vote to condemn them. Each and every time one of "The 25 Traitors" states that he/she "Supports the Troops", they must be soundly called out on the lie. Their vote proves that they do not support the troops. Their vote gives encouragement to subversive organizations such as Moveon.org and our enemies.

Every American should express their outrage that "The 25 Traitors" do not support the troops and refused to condemn the personal attacks. If you don't, you needed to be officially added to the list of "Traitors".

I agree that corruption is a HUGE problem in politics. We should have public financing of elections so Hso wouldn't be buy influence w/ Democrats and Abramoff wouln't have been able to buy influence w/ (mostly) Republicans.

I hope a lot of independent and moderate Democrat voters are paying attention

That would be kind of hard, most of those being dead. This is why trolls like "sunny" feel comfortable spouting unadulterated nonsense as fact: The only people who care wouldn't vote for their candidates in a million years, so why not?

Orion,

The "independent and moderate Democrat voters" may be paying attention, but do they outnumber the number of dead Democrats who continue to vote?

Dasein: Didn't the ad come out before the General gave testimony?

Yes. That's why I said if.

Isn't that calling into question the honesty, honor and integrity of a Commanding General in time of War without evidence?

I don't know about the "without evidence" part. There were plenty of details that leaked out before the fact -- many of them provided by Petraeus himself. As for the "calling into question the honesty, honor and integrity of a Commanding General" part, yes.

Isn’t that producing propaganda for the enemy in concert with the enemy? Why isn’t that treason?

Because no matter how despicable it was, there was no evidence it wasn't done in concert with the enemy.

And why isn't it treasonous to condone this act by not condemning it, publically, forcefully, and unequivocally?

Since when is not condemning something unequivocally the same as condoning it? Think back to your argument on aid to dependent families. You did neither, which I thought was appropriate. In this case there were other issues involved, at least for some. For example, Kerry strongly condemned the ad as soon as it came out. But he didn't vote for the sense of Senate ammendment. Sens. Boxer, Reid, Durbin, and Levin all condemned the ad, but they didn't vote for the ammendment either. I presume there may be others.

A-10, you again reiterated the amendment. Yet previously you said, "None of the facts concerning Senator's Kerry's actions in Vietnam revealed by the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth have been disproven." As if one is guilty until proven innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. A-10 also mentioned "As for Senator Cleland, I am sorry that he lost parts of both legs and his right arm. However, these wounds were not as a result of combat, but because of an accident that occured when, then CPT Clelend, was getting off a helicopter to have "a few beers with friends"". As if hand grenades were just a part of everyday life. You didn't mention the smear campaign against John McCain back in 2000. Why not? You didn't mention the smear campaign against Wesley Clark in 2004 concerning the decisions he previously made as NATO Supreme Commander. Why not? What about the personal attacks against Gen. Shinsecki, Gen. Zinni, Gen. Batiste, and others? Jack Murtha IS a disgrace, but less to the Marine Corps than to himself and to congress.

It's perfectly fine to question all of aforementioned on basis of their policies, their opinions, or their personal actions above and beyond their service, but to denigrate their performance and their sacrifice pursuant to said service (especially when the official channels honors that performance) is to denigrate the service itself. And that's beyond the pale, IMO.

Ricorun,

There is a difference between political smear tactics (Cleland, Kerry, Clark, etc) and calling the General who is leading the effort to win the war in Iraq a traitor.

Cleland was "smeared", not for his military service, by because he backed the unions over national security during the debate about the formation of the Dept of Homeland Security. The fact that he lost three limbs in Vietnam does not immunize him against criticism for poor judgement. Cleland, at the time of the "smear" was not a 4-Star General commanding the forces in Iraq. Big difference.

Kerry was smeared, rightly, for making his Vietnam service a focalpoint of his campaign. When the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth made their claims that the Senator was embellishing his Vietnam record, Kerry was not serving in uniform, but running for President. He was the one implying he was a "hero" in Vietnam. The Swifties were disputing that claim. Senator Kerry has yet to refute the SVT claims. Why? Maybe they are true. Show us your military records, Senator Kerry, and settle the argument for good. It's my bet that if he did sign the SF 180, and his records were released (if they still exist and haven't been "tampered" with), he would never again be reelected to the Senate. I'ts my guess that he received an "other that honorable" discharge and has been living a lie for decades.

I guess I missed the "smear" against McCain in 2000. Can you enlighten me. Was he serving in the military at the time, or running for office.

As for General Clark, the attacks were on his judgement for almost starting a shooting war with the Soviets at the Priština International Airport, statements at press briefings that were not cleared by superiors, and clowning around with Milošević. Some of the criticism was from his superiors (General Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

Can you site the "personal attacks against Gen. Shinsecki, Gen. Zinni, Gen. Batiste"? Was the criticism directed at them while they were in uniform, or after they had retired? Again, a big difference.

Ricorun,

Just to set the record straight, do you agree that the Amendment covers all personal attacks?

Do you think that the 25 Senators who voted against the Amendment should be soundly criticized?

Do you support the troop, or Moveon.org?

"It's perfectly fine to question all of aforementioned on basis of their policies, their opinions, or their personal actions"

"Kerry strongly condemned the ad as soon as it came out. But he didn't vote for the sense of Senate amendment." As did they all.

When called upon to back his words with a vote he wimped out so as to not offend the loony left. He can "say" whatever the hell he wants, but his actions speak volumes about his character. As did they all.

"Since when is not condemning something unequivocally the same as condoning it?"

Voting "no" is an affirmative action; it's not the same as not participating in the debate or expressing no opinion.

Ubama was apparently available, but skipped the vote. Maybe he down in LA, chummin' it up with Jackson and Sharpton...The Justice Brothers!!!!

Personally I hope that MoveOn.org keeps it up...all the way to November 2008. The country needs to know what they and their elected drones believe.

I find it amusing that Her Thighness immediately spun her vote. she now claims that she has the highest respect for Petraeus, but doesn't want to comment on the ad.

In addition, Obama showed the courage of his convictions by bailing out on the vote, even though he was on the Senate floor earlier in the day.

A-10: Just to set the record straight, do you agree that the Amendment covers all personal attacks?

Personally, I think it's a bit vague. See, I don't think a person should be smeared for past actions they took in the service of their country, particularly when their service was recognized as meritorious by the military establishment. I didn't vote for Kerry, but I thought that the Swift Boat guys questioning the medals he received was pretty despicable. Basically, what they were saying that not only was Kerry dishonest, but that the Navy was a bunch of fools for getting sucked in. That denigrates the whole service.

Was the criticism directed at them while they were in uniform, or after they had retired? Again, a big difference.

No, I don't think so -- for the reasons just indicated. Dasein said of you, "I honestly don't think of you as a "former" Marine; you're still fighting the good fight for us; that's what Marines do. That, to me, is the proper attitude.

Kerry denounced the attacks on Bush's service record, as well he should. In contrast, all Bush would say about the attacks on Kerry's service record were that he didn't like 527s. He should have said more, IMO.

On the other hand, Kerry's actions AFTER he left service IS a different story. And that's fair game, IMO. But to question his service 30 or more years after the fact, and to dispute the official record in the process? That to me is an extraordinary claim. And as such it requires extraordinary evidence. And the Swift Boat guys didn't have it. Imagine if someone questioned your own service on similar grounds.

You asked about the attacks on McCain back in 2000. There were a few, but the one I specifically referred to was the accusation that he was not a hero at all but a Manchurian Candidate, brainwashed or broken in captivity and sent home to betray his comrades in
arms. I'm not saying that story, or any other, was endorsed by the Bush campaign, but they didn't condemn them, either. They just said they weren't responsible for what other people say. What a pathetic response. After all, if the campaigns allow negative attacks against their adversaries to stand, negative attacks will flourish accordingly. It poisons the whole process.

The same could be said of MoveOn.org's ad. In this case the Senate was called upon to condemn them in a floor vote. Fine with me. I think it should happen more often. Then again, it wastes a lot of time. So where do you draw the line?

According to your argument, the difference is that Petraeus should not be personally smeared because he currently wears a uniform. I'm fine with that. However, it appears your opinion is that as soon as he takes it off, he's fair game -- even for policies he pursued while in uniform. I don't agree with that. I suggest more continuity: that people should avoid personal smears of people in uniform even after they take that uniform off. In other words, until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt, the accolades they received for their honor and integrity while serving their country should be held in high esteem. Always. That's the way it used to be. Didn't it?

Incidentally, one of the founders of Vietnam Vets Against Kerry, a guy named Ted Sampley, went after Bush41, questioning the events surrounding the downing of his plane in WWII. Why? Because Mr. Sampley didn't like that Bush41 was a member of a 1996 entourage sent to Vietnam seeking to normalize relations. I guess you could say that it's fortunate that back in 1996 Mr. Sampley didn't have much of a stage for spreading his poison. But it's still pretty freakin' unbelievable.

As for General Clark, the attacks were on his judgement for almost starting a shooting war with the Soviets at the Priština International Airport, statements at press briefings that were not cleared by superiors, and clowning around with Milošević. Some of the criticism was from his superiors (General Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

Argue the issues, not the person. After all, Clark never would have become NATO commander if he didn't do a bunch of things right. That sense of continuity seems to have gotten lost. CENTCOM commander Fallon called Petraeus an "ass-kissing little chicken shit". Does that open Petraeus up to personal attack by everyone? No, of course not. I'm sure you know more than most how these guys talk. Half of them anyway. I never met Adm. Fallon, but Gen. Mattis is one of the most foul-mouthed individuals I've ever met (in private). He could singe the feathers off a chicken at 10 paces, lol! But to generally question his intelligence (or any of them) would be a very big mistake. These guys run the gambit between being very soft-spoken and diffucult to rile to exactly the opposite. But all of them are really smart people, and all of them are hard as nails. They're the best of the best, IMO.

To generally answer your other questions, I thought the way the far left reacted to Petraeus's testimony was awful. No, I don't support MoveOn.org. Not their ad specifically, nor them generally. But I do respect their right to exist. This is, after all, a democracy. I was also heartened that some of those that did not vote for Cornyn's ammendment did, however, denounce the MoveOn.org ad. Dasein claims that all of them did. But without hard evidence of that, that concept causes too much cognitive dissociation for my brain to deal with. Either way, it's clear that some people distinguish between the two. And I'm fine with that, too. After all, the ammendment was non-binding. Outside of politics -- that is, in the real world -- it amounted to a hill of beans anyway.

Oh f!ck! I said "cognitive dissociation". I mean "cognitive dissonance"! I actually proof-read that last post -- but I STILL didn't notice that goof until I posted it! Frickin heck.

...but I thought that the Swift Boat guys questioning the medals he received was pretty despicable.

Maybe, maybe not, Rico, but I think the Swiftvets were a bit pissed at Kerry's false testimony about atrocities he "witnessed." You remember--the Jenjis Khan comparison and all that?

And yes, I spelled it phonetically--the way ol' Spitball pronounced it...

I love the excuse everyone is using for voting no on the amendment. See the reason is the vote was a waste of time, so they had to vote no. I guess that takes the willing suspension of disbelief.

Apparently Murtha's corruption was fine until he turned against the war now it has suddenly become a big problem. He's right though, about the public being far ahead of the government with this war. With Bush's approval rating dropping again who the hell is this dog-and-pony show that Washington puts on for anyway?

Drew Carey, hardly a liberal by any means, was on Bill Maher last week and mentioned a poll taken for the show he hosts, "The Power of Ten". The question was "Should America withdraw from Iraq or finish what we started?". The choice of "finish what we started" came in at 12%. The American people are sick and tired of being sick and tired of Bush. And since the Dems won't show any spine against a President no one likes they ought to be voted ought of office.

The Swift Boat Vets CORRECTLY pointed out that Kerry had not been in Cambodia nor in the region when Nixon was President as he claimed.

As to the medals. Both sides had equal credibility and I don't know whether he deserved them or not. However, he later threw them over a fence at the Capital during a protest and confirmed they were his in a TV interview. Though of course he later claimed they were not his.