Bush Yanks Leash and Senate Goes BAAAAA!

[Rohirrim]

The Senate passed nothing today. Not Webb's bill for our soldiers to get as much time home as they do in Iraq. In fact, they did pretty much nothing... EXCEPT, Bush sent the message that he didn't like the Moveon ad, so Cornyn, the good little lap dog, put in a bill to denounce the ad - your government at work! It passed. 72 Yeas. 22 Nays. And three super chickens who didn't vote: Biden, Cantwell and OBAMA!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

http://www.connachtgold.ie/files/images/sheep.jpg

I can't believe we have people dying in a war and the most important thing to Bush and the Right is to waste time with useless political sniping.

[Bronco Bob]

To their credit Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd had the guts to vote against it.

[Spider]

****ing joke ....wasting our ****ing tax dollars to whine and bitch about some 2 bit political group ....... meanwhile we have Healthcare and Iraq to deal with ..... my senator better not ask me why congress has a 11% approval rating

[Spider]

come Nov time for sweeping change . this countries political views have become so jaded and partisan , that both sides **** a brick and wig out at the thought of the other side winning an argument ......
I am a dem , but dont really fall in line with Nancy Pelosi dems ...... I am more like a JFK/FDR Democrat ......
I can respect a real conservative disagree with him but respect him , but wont think twice about telling a neo con to **** off .......

[Rohirrim]

Michael Kinsley of Time had a good take on it:

Goodness gracious. oh, my paws and whiskers. Some of the meanest, most ornery hombres around are suddenly feeling faint. Notorious tough guys are swooning with the vapors. The biggest beasts in the barnyard are all aflutter over something they read in the New York Times. It's that ad from MoveOn.org — the one that calls General David Petraeus, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, general betray us. All across the radio spectrum, right-wing shock jocks are themselves shocked. How could anybody say such a thing? It's horrifying. It's outrageous. It's disgraceful. It's just beyond the pale ... It's ... oh, my heavens ... say, is it a bit stuffy in here? ... I think I'm going to ... Could I have a glass of ... oh, dear [thud].

Welcome to the wonderful world of umbrage, the new language of American politics. You would not have thought that the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly would be so sensitive. Sticks and stones and so on. Yet they all seem to have taken one look at that ad and fainted dead away. And when they came round, they demanded — as if with one voice (or at least as if with one list of talking points) — that every Democratic presidential candidate must "condemn" this shocking, shocking document.
The ad is pretty tough, and the pun on the general's name is pretty witless. You could argue that since the verb betray and the noun traitor have the same root, the ad is accusing the head of American forces in Iraq of treason. The ad can also be interpreted — more plausibly if you consider the rest of the text — merely as questioning the general's honesty, not his patriotism. But whatever your interpretation of the ad, all the gasping for air and waving of scented handkerchiefs among the war's most enthusiastic supporters is pretty comical.
It's all phony, of course. The war's backers are obviously delighted to have this ad from which they can make an issue. They wouldn't trade it for a week in Anbar province (a formerly troubled area of Iraq that is now, thanks to us, an Eden of peace and tranquillity where barely a car bomb disturbs the perfumed silence — or so they say). These days, mock outrage is used by every side of every dispute. It's fair enough to criticize something your opponent said while secretly thanking your lucky stars that he said it. The fuss over this MoveOn.org ad is something else: it is the result of a desperate scavenging for umbrage material. When so many people are clamoring for a chance to swoon that they each have to take a number and when the landscape is so littered with folks lying prostrate and pretending to be dead that it starts to look like the end of a Civil War battle re-enactment, this isn't spontaneous mass outrage. This is choreography.
The constant calls for political candidates to prove their bona fides by condemning or denouncing something somebody else said or to renounce a person's support or to return her tainted money are a tiresome new tic in American politics. They're turning politics into a game of "Mother, May I?" Did you say "Here is my plan for health-care reform"? Uh-oh, you were supposed to say "I condemn MoveOn.org's comments on General Petraeus, and here is my plan for health-care reform."
All this drawing of uncrossable lines and issuing of fatuous fatwas is supposed to be a bad habit of the left. When right-wingers are attacking this habit rather than practicing it, they call it political correctness. The problem with political correctness is that it turns discussions of substance into arguments over etiquette. The last thing that supporters of the war want to talk about at this point is the war. They'd far rather talk about this insult to General Petraeus. It just isn't done in polite society, it seems, to criticize a general in the middle of a war. (Although, when else?)
The Republican front runner, Rudy Giuliani, is another tough guy who has seized the opportunity to reveal his easily bruised soft side. He is running TV commercials saying Hillary Clinton "stood by silently" while MoveOn.org ran its despicable ad. Another way of saying this would be that she had nothing to do with the ad. But Rudy accuses her of "joining with" MoveOn.org and "attacking" General Petraeus, although the only evidence he can muster for this accusation is a clip from Clinton telling the general at a hearing that his reports of progress in the war "really require the willing suspension of disbelief." For this, Giuliani demands an "apology," not just to the general but to all American troops in Iraq. He accuses her of "turning her back" on America's brave soldiers "just when our troops need all our support to finish the job."
When we try to untangle this web of accusation and innuendo, Giuliani appears to be suggesting that it is unacceptable for a Senator to express skepticism about anything said by a general in uniform. If he believes that, he does not understand democracy. I am shocked by this. In fact, if Giuliani doesn't apologize, and if the other Republican candidates don't condemn this commercial, I think I'm going to faint.

[Spider]

Lol

[Rigs11]

what a bunch of bullshait. These repubs are a bunch of bullys that turn into a bunch of vaginas when it gets done to them. THe repukes are the biggest smearers around. just turn on a right wing radio and see for yourself ,or hey how about the thrashing of Mclelland, mccain and kerry. hey bush was the thrashing of them disgusting?No Bush we don't want to know what you are going to do about blackwater, nope we don't want to know what you are going to do about iraq, we only want to know your thoughts on a stupid ad.And about the ad. patreus himself originally stated in the counter insurgency manual that we would need one soldier for every 40 iraqis for stability. That would mean what? Around 650,000 troops?So then the white house cooks the books and he goes along with it. how is that not betrayal?patreus is more concerned with keeping his job than giving a correct assesment of the situation.Fallon, his boss, has criticized petraeus, as well.then the spineless dems fall into this trap of voting for a bill that says what? That we can't criticize the military?this is ****en ridicoulous.

[Garcia Bronco]

what a bunch of bullshait. These repubs are a bunch of bullys that turn into a bunch of vaginas .

72 Yeas. 22 Nays

That means that more than a few Democrats voted on the bill. You might want to rethink how you feel.

[Garcia Bronco]

That we can't criticize the military?this is ****en ridicoulous.

You can't criticize our military in the way that ad did. Good, Bad, or Indifferent they lay their lives on the line so the rest of us can live our lives. You and the rest need to respect that.

[Smiling Assassin27]

The Senate passed nothing today. Not Webb's bill for our soldiers to get as much time home as they do in Iraq. In fact, they did pretty much nothing... EXCEPT, Bush sent the message that he didn't like the Moveon ad, so Cornyn, the good little lap dog, put in a bill to denounce the ad - your government at work! It passed. 72 Yeas. 22 Nays. And three super chickens who didn't vote: Biden, Cantwell and OBAMA!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344

http://www.connachtgold.ie/files/images/sheep.jpg

I can't believe we have people dying in a war and the most important thing to Bush and the Right is to waste time with useless political sniping.

uh, who's in charge of Congress again? you're not really gonna tell me that meaningless and stupid ceremonial votes are only initiated by ONE side of the aisle are you? why in the world would you rape bush on sending such a moronic bill, then hammer only the right for holding such a stupid vote when all the dems chose to a)allow its introduction, b) debate it, and c)vote on it as well? this is the epitome of partisanship on your part. don't look now but your prejudice is showing...

[Spider]

You can't criticize our military in the way that ad did. Good, Bad, or Indifferent they lay their lives on the line so the rest of us can live our lives. You and the rest need to respect that.

what universe do you live in ? and is rent cheap there ?

[Rigs11]

You can't criticize our military in the way that ad did. Good, Bad, or Indifferent they lay their lives on the line so the rest of us can live our lives. You and the rest need to respect that.

So if someone in the military lies we can't criticize them?Bullcrap, go back and read my post. patreus has been crticized by his boss Fallon as well.Patreus stated we would need 650,000 troops to stabalize iraq. he didn get half that and yet things are working in iraq?The white house cooked the books and patreus went along with it. Betrayal should be called out on anyone regardless of wether they are in the military or not.And quit with the 'we don't value what the troops do for us' shmeal. If you really respected the troops you would call out a general for worrying more about getting fired than giving an honest assesment to the country.

[Rigs11]

72 Yeas. 22 Nays

That means that more than a few Democrats voted on the bill. You might want to rethink how you feel.

read the last 2 sentences of my post genius.

[Bronco Bob]

You can't criticize our military in the way that ad did. Good, Bad, or Indifferent they lay their lives on the line so the rest of us can live our lives. You and the rest need to respect that.

Where did the ad criticize the military? All the ad did was criticize one
Bush stooge for spreading more Bush lies about the war. When someone
in the military becomes a political pawn, they become fair game.
This is no worse than what the Republicans did to John Kerry and
Max Cleeland.

[Rohirrim]

uh, who's in charge of Congress again? you're not really gonna tell me that meaningless and stupid ceremonial votes are only initiated by ONE side of the aisle are you? why in the world would you rape bush on sending such a moronic bill, then hammer only the right for holding such a stupid vote when all the dems chose to a)allow its introduction, b) debate it, and c)vote on it as well? this is the epitome of partisanship on your part. don't look now but your prejudice is showing...

:bs: I thought I was pretty clear about it. Anybody who voted yes on that bill is a sheep. Anybody who was too chicken to vote on it is even less than a sheep. And these are the people who had the guts to tell Bush to shove it:

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)

Any Repugnants on that list? I thought not. Baaaaa!

[Garcia Bronco]

So if someone in the military lies we can't criticize them?Bullcrap, go back and read my post. patreus has been crticized by his boss Fallon as well.Patreus stated we would need 650,000 troops to stabalize iraq. he didn get half that and yet things are working in iraq?The white house cooked the books and patreus went along with it. Betrayal should be called out on anyone regardless of wether they are in the military or not.And quit with the 'we don't value what the troops do for us' shmeal. If you really respected the troops you would call out a general for worrying more about getting fired than giving an honest assesment to the country.

No one has lied to you.

[Bronco Bob]

No one has lied to you.

How do you know?

[Garcia Bronco]

How do you know?

Exactly. So one must treat another as being truthful unless they have proof. It's called slander an it's illegal. since there is no proof.....

[Rigs11]

No one has lied to you.

What a tool. Many if not all reports from iraq contradict what patreaus has said.Past generals have been fired by Dubya for giving accurate reports. You connect the dots....if you have the mental capacity.

[Rigs11]

You'll love this article. Note the date , and that a former retired general called him betraeus. Hey Garcia does this general have the right to criticize him?

From The Sunday Times
August 19, 2007
Americans doubt ‘General Betraeus’ over troop surge

AFTER being hailed as King David, the potential saviour of Iraq, the US commander General David Petraeus is facing a backlash in advance of his report to Congress in September on the progress of America’s troop surge.

Critics, including one recently retired general, are privately calling him “General Betraeus” on the grounds that he is too ambitious to deliver a balanced report on the war.

Lawrence Korb, a defence official under Ronald Reagan who is now at the Center for American Progress, a Democratic think tank, said Petraeus was regarded as “the most political general since General [Douglas] Mac-Arthur”, a reference to the second world war hero who was touted as a possible president.

Opponents of the troop surge believe that President George W Bush has been hiding behind Petraeus’s reputation for too long. “The president says the surge is the ‘Petraeus’ strategy. Petraeus should say, ‘No, I work for the president. This is his strategy’,” said Korb. “He is very ambitious and there’s nothing wrong with that, but his ambition may be used in an inappropriate way.”

Petraeus, who studied at Princeton and co-wrote the US army’s new counter-insurgency doctrine, is widely regarded as one of the brightest soldiers of his generation. He has an impressive grasp of military history - including British operations against 1950s Malayan insurgents and in Northern Ireland during the Troubles - as well as the physical stamina, at 54, to go on regular 10-mile runs with his troops. Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star general, describes Petraeus as “brilliant”.

One senior military source said Petraeus could be ambitious enough to move into politics one day. But the general would be looking for “bipartisan support” for his strategy in Iraq and was likely to give an accurate picture of progress on the ground.

Frederick Kagan, a military historian at the American Enterprise Institute and advocate of the surge, said Petraeus would deliver an honest assessment: “Even if it were true that he is too ambitious, and I don’t agree with that, if he makes some compromise that leads to failure in this conflict, that’s not in his interest at all.” According to a poll by CNN/Opinion Research Corp on Friday, 53% of Americans believe the report will try to make the situation in Iraq sound more favourable than it is. Only 43% said they trusted the US commander to give an objective picture.

Adding to suspicions, the report - based on recommendations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq - will be written by White House staff. But both men will testify in public before Congress.

The report is expected to highlight progress in Anbar province and only patchy success in restoring order to Baghdad.

Crocker is said to have almost given up trying to persuade Nouri Al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, to come to a political accommodation with the Sunnis and is concentrating his efforts on wooing tribal sheikhs.

Petraeus and his second-in-command, General Ray Odierno, are seeking sufficient support to continue the surge until April. Odierno said last Friday that plans were under way to reduce troops to presurge levels by August 2008. By then the US presidential election will be only three months away and the White House is hoping to take some of the political sting out of the war.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article2284289.ece

[W*GS]

"Most political general since MacArthur"?

What about Eisenhower?

[Spider]

"Most political general since MacArthur"?

What about Eisenhower?

both were equally political , so when we mention Macarthur we have to mention Eisenhower ?

[Spider]

so it is like this ......... Eisenhower( MacArthur) put forth connecting America with interstate system , ...... but Eisenhower( MacArthur ) had a great vision .interesting WIGGY

[Rohirrim]

Why don't we discuss McLelland? Maybe because that's just a deflection from the main issue which is contained in this sentence:
Adding to suspicions, the report - based on recommendations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq - will be written by White House staff. But both men will testify in public before Congress.

[Spider]

Why don't we discuss McLelland? Maybe because that's just a deflection from the main issue which is contained in this sentence:
Adding to suspicions, the report - based on recommendations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the US ambassador to Iraq - will be written by White House staff. But both men will testify in public before Congress.

no question lone bolts man crush runs deep

[Bronco Bob]

"Most political general since MacArthur"?

What about Eisenhower?

How was Eisenhower political while he was still an active duty General?
Can you cite some examples?