Flushing Out the Traitors!
66 RepliesJump to last post
The Senate overwhelming approved a condemnation of the Moveon.org NY Times ad that condemned General Petraeus, calling him General "Betrayus". The link below takes you to a site that lists those Senators voting for the resolution vs. those traitors voting against it or not voting at all.
I don't believe anyone who can fog a mirror will be surprised at the results.
This is a benign piece of legislation, people. Voting for it doesn't necessarily mean you're a flaming red, white, & blue patriot. BUT voting against it is like voting against Mom & apple pie!
I don't question the patriotism of those who voted against it or did not vote; there's no question at all. THEY ARE TRAITORS!
I just hope and pray that someday, the "nay" voters and the no-show voters are riding in a bus driven by Senator Edward Kennedy. (For those who don't get the irony, think Chappaquiddick.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c all_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344#n ame
Fox News Link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html
[quote=icecream]Every now and then an issue comes along that you can sink your teeth into. [/quote]
Great comment.
[quote=doberman]
The Senate overwhelming approved a condemnation of the Moveon.org NY Times ad that condemned General Petraeus, calling him General "Betrayus". The link below takes you to a site that lists those Senators voting for the resolution vs. those traitors voting against it or not voting at all.
I don't believe anyone who can fog a mirror will be surprised at the results.
This is a benign piece of legislation, people. Voting for it doesn't necessarily mean you're a flaming red, white, & blue patriot. BUT voting against it is like voting against Mom & apple pie!
I don't question the patriotism of those who voted against it or did not vote; there's no question at all. THEY ARE TRAITORS!
I just hope and pray that someday, the "nay" voters and the no-show voters are riding in a bus driven by Senator Edward Kennedy. (For those who don't get the irony, think Chappaquiddick.)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c all_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00344#n ame
Fox News Link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html
[/quote]
Doby, ya know I luv ya, but on this we disagree. I too, was none too impressed with the Moveon.org ad. However, their position as dessenters against the current administration is well known. While I may not agree with them, or with their methods of message delivery, that they be able to deliver that message is at the foundation of what our country is about. Turning the clock back a few hundred years it was the desenters, the traitors, who dumped tea in Boston's harbor and it was traitors who signed the Declaration of Independence. Word had it that those acts, none to popular with the then current administration, were condemned. That said, what the Senate did was, without question, wrong. These people who are elected to represent us, who can't agree on most important issues of the day, managed to come together to make a political statement. A cheap polital trick. It's a meaningless distraction from the important issues of the day. Kinda like matching out the Flag Burning amendment. Meanwhile real solutions to real problems remain without resolution. And the saddest part is the way people fall for this crap. You might want to ask who the true traitors are? Is it those who wish to affect change or those who waste our time, waste our money, pander to their audience, and embrace the status quo? Lastly, that Bush/Rumsfeld politiczed the military, again not a secret, opened the gate to the exact type of accusation that moveon.org is making.[quote=BondGuy]
Lastly, that Bush/Rumsfeld politiczed the military, again not a secret, opened the gate to the exact type of accusation that moveon.org is making.[/quote] It's no surprise that the same people who trot out the I-didn't-approve-of-what-moveon-did-but-FREE-SPEECH-is-being-challenged-it's-a-waste-of-time-to-discuss-this-in-the-Senate talking points always have to throw in some ridiculous line, like the above fiction, to provide a quasi-justification for what moveon did to Petraeus.Let’s not forget, General Petraeus was approved by both Democrats and Republicans to command the forces in Iraq. Also, the Dems, as a condition of approval, demanded that an accounting for the war be given last September, which he gave.
Now, just because he didn't say what the Dems wanted to hear in his report, he's now called a Republican lackey! And the logic of this is....? For those who think I over-react on negative issues involving the military, please keep in mind that the armed forces are prohibited from making political comments. Murtha, Kerry, and company can compare our military forces to Nazi's all day long and the good General can't say a thing in response. So, in my own small way, I'm defending their honor against those who have no honor. For those who disagree with my response and call it a free speech issue, no problem. But, for those who agreed with the basis of the attack ad, you too have no honor.[quote=BondGuy] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
That moveon.org called Petraeus out, does that really matter? And to who? [/quote]
It seems it matters to most people of both parties, given the vote in the Senate. If you can’t understand why some people get agitated that the commander of <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US troops engaged in combat is smeared by some fringe group as a traitor, and that they, in turn, ask politicians aligned with said group to go on the record about whether or not they agreed with the terms of the attack, fine. Perhaps it matters even more to me coming from a military background.
Most of the rest of us get it, and frankly, given your equivocation-filled posts on the subject prior to this one, we “get” why you don’t “get” it. The entire talking point list about hwo you don’t agree with moveon, but, but, but……
[quote=BondGuy]
Dave is a big boy who can stand up for himself without a bunch of blowhard senators doing it for him. [/quote]
No, he can't. He's specifically forbidden by the UCMJ from entering the political fray. Unlike a politician, he can’t hold a press conference refuting the charges, issue counter-charges, energize a political network to do his bidding. As an officer in uniform, he’s unable to do any of that.
All he can do is sit up straight, tell the truth under oath, and stand as a whipping boy for blowhards in the Senate who used their entire “question time” to pontificate at a man they don’t have the standing to carry coffee for, and to get hammered by the loons of the fringe like moveon.
[quote=BondGuy] Meanwhile these guys forced the NYT into issuing an apology for running the ad. And that is a free speech issue. [/quote]
I'm unaware the Times issued an apology, I know they said after the fact that the ad violated their policy of not allowing advocacy ads that were personal attacks. That no personal attack policy of the Times, which they violated here, isn’t a free speech issue. Could you provide evidence for us that “these guys” forced the Times to do anything?
BTW, I get tired of explaining that it isn’t a violation of your free speech when someone responds to your comments, that’s THEIR freedom of speech. Freedom of speech violations are when the GOVERNMENT restricts your right to speak, which clearly isn’t the case here.
[quote=BondGuy] One way will be to wave the American Flag in their face, calling their opponent a traitor. Its a cheap political trick designed to get votes, nothing more. {/quote]
Nice speech, but not close to reality. The only people I heard using the term “traitor” was moveon.org directing that charge at “Betrayous”. Dep used it here, and I told him from outset I disagreed with the use of the word, but to claim that happened in the Senate is untrue.
[quote=BondGuy]
Petraeus, I'm sure, is an honorable man. The senators who put this condemnation forward are anything but.
[/quote]
Yawn… I’d say the “anything but” label belongs to the Senators who dodged the issue, most of whom are running for the Whitehouse as Democrats and lacked the courage to go on the record on this. If you can’t stand up to moveon when they cross a line that the vast majority of us can see very clearly, who can you stand up to?
[quote=mikebutler222]
[quote=BondGuy] <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
That moveon.org called Petraeus out, does that really matter? And to who? [/quote]
It seems it matters to most people of both parties, given the vote in the Senate. If you can’t understand why some people get agitated that the commander of <?: prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US troops engaged in combat is smeared by some fringe group as a traitor, and that they, in turn, ask politicians aligned with said group to go on the record about whether or not they agreed with the terms of the attack, fine. Perhaps it matters even more to me coming from a military background.
Most of the rest of us get it, and frankly, given your equivocation-filled posts on the subject prior to this one, we “get” why you don’t “get” it. The entire talking point list about hwo you don’t agree with moveon, but, but, but……
[quote=BondGuy]
Dave is a big boy who can stand up for himself without a bunch of blowhard senators doing it for him. [/quote]
No, he can't. He's specifically forbidden by the UCMJ from entering the political fray. Unlike a politician, he can’t hold a press conference refuting the charges, issue counter-charges, energize a political network to do his bidding. As an officer in uniform, he’s unable to do any of that.
All he can do is sit up straight, tell the truth under oath, and stand as a whipping boy for blowhards in the Senate who used their entire “question time” to pontificate at a man they don’t have the standing to carry coffee for, and to get hammered by the loons of the fringe like moveon.
[quote=BondGuy] Meanwhile these guys forced the NYT into issuing an apology for running the ad. And that is a free speech issue. [/quote]
I'm unaware the Times issued an apology, I know they said after the fact that the ad violated their policy of not allowing advocacy ads that were personal attacks. That no personal attack policy of the Times, which they violated here, isn’t a free speech issue. Could you provide evidence for us that “these guys” forced the Times to do anything?
BTW, I get tired of explaining that it isn’t a violation of your free speech when someone responds to your comments, that’s THEIR freedom of speech. Freedom of speech violations are when the GOVERNMENT restricts your right to speak, which clearly isn’t the case here.
[quote=BondGuy] One way will be to wave the American Flag in their face, calling their opponent a traitor. Its a cheap political trick designed to get votes, nothing more. {/quote]
Nice speech, but not close to reality. The only people I heard using the term “traitor” was moveon.org directing that charge at “Betrayous”. Dep used it here, and I told him from outset I disagreed with the use of the word, but to claim that happened in the Senate is untrue.
[quote=BondGuy]
Petraeus, I'm sure, is an honorable man. The senators who put this condemnation forward are anything but.
[/quote]
Yawn… I’d say the “anything but” label belongs to the Senators who dodged the issue, most of whom are running for the Whitehouse as Democrats and lacked the courage to go on the record on this. If you can’t stand up to moveon when they cross a line that the vast majority of us can see very clearly, who can you stand up to?
[/quote]
The senate turned Petraeus into a victim for their own political gain. The NYT ad was an opportunity that was too good to pass up. If you think that, that vote isn't going to show up in next year's election well as the saying goes I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Of course it will. And those who voted Nay or didn't vote will be labelled as traitors. Now don't take that literally mike. It will be done in the usual fill in the blanks kind of way. I can hear it now; "My opponent didn't support our military commanders during a time of war. He/she refused to condemn those who would call our military leaders traitors. I ask you here and now, who is the real traitor?" Flags wave as the band strikes up "God Bless America." And the guy who lost his job, because the senator who is delivering that speech helped ship it overseas, votes for the senator again because he's not going to vote for some moveon lovin commie who doesn't defend our troops in a time of war. Geez Mike, what is it that you don't get? Waning support for the war, embattled republicans hunkered down, dejected. The war front and center in an upcoming election. Petraeus' report to the senate wasn't politcal when he delivered it, the republicans sure changed that. Meanwhile, the real issues, jobs, taxes, healthcare get sidelined. You said it yourself "smeared by some fringe group." The thing about fringe groups is that they have no credibility. This certainly applies to moveon. There was no reason relating to honor to mount a defense against moveon's slanted pov. As for the NYT issuing an apology. The did so in so many words, in admitting that the ad violated policy. Yet, they did run the ad. If one is to believe that the NYT made the mistake of not proof reading it's own paper, missing a full page ad, well then we're back to that bridge for sale in Brooklyn. That they were compelled to defend their actions is where we get into the free speech arena.[quote=BondGuy] The senate turned Petraeus into a victim for their own political gain. [/quote]
They, members of both parties, defended the honor of a military commander with troops in combat who’s dedicated his adult life to service to the nation, from unconscionable attacks from the lunatic fringe. I guess you missed the public outrage that began before the Senate got involved.
[quote=BondGuy] If you think that, that vote isn't going to show up in next year's election … [/quote]
It may well come up with those that ran from the vote, and it should. That’s what this is really about with you, you know Petraeus wasn’t able to defend himself, you just care more that some coward who knuckled under to moveon might have to pay a political price for it down the road.
[quote=BondGuy] And those who voted Nay or didn't vote will be labelled as traitors. [/quoted]
Hopefully more accurate terms will be used, like “captive of the left fringe” or “coward”. Ask me if I have any sympathy for people who would let Petraeus be slandered like that.
[quote=BondGuy] Mike, what is it that you don't get? Waning support for the war, embattled republicans hunkered down, dejected. [/quote]
That’s a cute story, but it has nothing to do with the fact that defending Petareaus was the right thing to do, as Democrats who voted to defend him agree. The worst you can say is that some were right for the wrong reason.
[quote=BondGuy] Petraeus' report to the senate wasn't politcal when he delivered it, the republicans sure changed that. [/quote]
That one’s every bit as vacant as your other comments about “Dave”.
[quote=BondGuy] Meanwhile, the real issues, jobs, taxes, healthcare get sidelined. [/quote]
Oh spare me. It took them an hour, and it was the least that could be done for Petraeus. If you want to tell me that hour would have solved your laundry list, and that Reid hasn’t spend far more time on even less important issues, I’ll sell that bridge back to you. I would have been furious is they didn’t defend the guy.
[quote=BondGuy] You said it yourself "smeared by some fringe group." The thing about fringe groups is that they have no credibility. This certainly applies to moveon. [/quote]
You seem to have missed the fact that moveon claims to own the Democratic party these days, and the deference some Democrats give them seems to prove their claim. If only they didn’t speak for much of the base and the money in the Democratic party….
[quote=BondGuy]
As for the NYT issuing an apology. The did so in so many words, in admitting that the ad violated policy. [/quote]
Weasel words, pal. Congress didn’t “force them to apologize” like you claimed, an internal investigation proved the Times violated their OWN standards, and not just with the content of the ad, but the pricing as well.
You sacrifice any credibility you might have had with this sort of stuff, “in so many words”. That’s just like so many other areas in your post, bold claims that just can’t stand up to any critical examination.
Having served in the military for 22 years and know first hand how it feels not to be able to make political statements for either side–it was an insult to General Petraeus and to every single military member that has given their time and blood for this country to be called a betrayer. In politics everybody is fair game–but those who follow the orders of the civilian leadership that is elected and appointed–that wear the uniform of the US Military should be considered off limits.
Like the majority of US Citizens, I vote not for a party--but for an individual. I don't like radicals on either side of the two political animals--but when a party supports an attack on a person who puts on the uniform--I am outraged. Part of the oath we took as military members is--I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States agaist all enemies foreign or domestic. I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me and the military code of military justice. So Help Me GOD! General Petraeus obeyed the orders given him--he did it with honor and he should be given the proper respect for following the orders given to him by the President and the Congress of the United States--God bless the young men and women who continue to serve this great country as a volunteer.Right on, Doberman, Butler and Roadhard.
I would like to propose, in this particularly polarizing election climate, that networks mandate a party affiliation displayed for those expressing political OPINIONS being framed as NEWS. Much like CNBC commentators have to declare ownership status on a stock when expressing an opinion, I'd like to see these libs being framed as unbiased news souses have a little D by their name any time they spew propaganda, so the public can know when they're being spun and the truth. Phony soldiers anyone? Haditha? Global warming? etc. etc. Stok[quote=Roadhard]
Like the majority of US Citizens, I vote not for a party--but for an individual. I don't like radicals on either side of the two political animals--but when a party supports an attack on a person who puts on the uniform--I am outraged.[/quote] Roadhard, Were you outraged when the swiftboaters attacked John Kerry? I myself do not think he would have made a great president. Just my opinion. But when he was attacked and the 527 group questioned his service, his decorations, etc., I too was outraged.[quote=Big Taco][quote=Roadhard]
Like the majority of US Citizens, I vote not for a party--but for an individual. I don't like radicals on either side of the two political animals--but when a party supports an attack on a person who puts on the uniform--I am outraged.[/quote] Roadhard, Were you outraged when the swiftboaters attacked John Kerry? I myself do not think he would have made a great president. Just my opinion. But when he was attacked and the 527 group questioned his service, his decorations, etc., I too was outraged. [/quote] I was NOT outraged by the Swiftboat Vets pointing out the historical facts of John Kerry's traitorous actions during the Vietnam War. I WAS outraged by John Kerry attempting to remake history and attempt to make himself some sort of war hero. Outraged by his pretense on supporting the military, when he did everything he could to denigrate and debase the men who had served in Vietnam by lying and exaggerating. I was there during those times and I hold John Kerry personally responsible for the horrid treatment that returning Vets received and for the fiction that Vietnam Vets were baby killing, raping, wild eyed crazies who were too dangerous to hire for jobs when they were no longer in the military. He lied about his service, fraudulently obtained his medals, lied in front of Congress about the actions of others, met with the enemy illegally in a time of war while still in his uniform, refused and still refuses to release his military official records. The man is scum.[quote=granuja]
He lied about his service, fraudulently obtained his medals, lied in front of Congress about the actions of others, met with the enemy illegally in a time of war while still in his uniform, refused and still refuses to release his military official records. The man is scum. [/quote] You're entitled to your opinion. BTW, I was asking Roadhard, not you. It's clear that you don't see any problem attacking a man's service record, as long as he's not a member of your political party. My opinion is that he obtained his decorations using traditional channels after being wounded in the line of duty, served his country at war, rescued a man, and then came back and excercised his constitutional rights to question his government. These are just the facts as I see them. Otherwise I could care less about Kerry. It's the idea of the depths that the 527 group sunk to for political mudslinging. It's also not even the idea of saying all of these nasty things about Kerry, it's the idea that they don't seem to be true. I don't agree with you at all, Babs. And his military records have been released from what I can tell from this link: http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html[quote=Big Taco]
My opinion is that he obtained his decorations using traditional channels after being wounded in the line of duty, served his country at war, rescued a man, and then came back and excercised his constitutional rights to question his government. [/quote]You're entitled to your opinion, but I'm at a lost as to how your opinion is worth more than that of the officer peers Kerry served with. I'm uncomfortable with the quibbling about Kerry's medals, the fog of war being what it is, the inflated narration present in most awards, etc., but those that served with him (those that appeared with his campaign, as well as those that aligned against him) are entitled to their positions.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
What I'm not at all uncomfortable about is noting that he used a “three and out” option that no other officer used in order to shorten his tour to four months from one year. He left his troops behind. As a former officer myself, I have to tell you that’s extremely significant.
Secondly, I’m not at all uncomfortable with noting what he did when he returned and just how he did it. You keep trying to frame it as him just exercising his freedom of speech, as if anyone seeks to take that right away from him, and as if stating that it was his right closes the subject. Sorry, but it doesn’t. He slurred those he served with (and that’s what started his decades long fight with those who came to be known as “Swiftboaters”), he participated in demonstrations where North Vietnamese and Viet Cong flags flew, and he did it in a “uniform”. You might not have a problem with that, and that’s fine by me, just don’t try to keep the rest of us from discussing it and how we feel about it with some pathetic “freedom of speech” whine as if anyone was attempting to squelch his freedom of speech.
Finally, your attempt to liken the response of his officer peers to Kerry’s attempts to capitalize for political gain his service record, to make his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign, and juxtapose that to the attacks on Petraeus, a serving combat commander still in uniform, is just tragically silly.
[quote=Roadhard]Having served in the military for 22 years and know first hand how it feels not to be able to make political statements for either side–it was an insult to General Petraeus and to every single military member that has given their time and blood for this country to be called a betrayer. In politics everybody is fair game–but those who follow the orders of the civilian leadership that is elected and appointed–that wear the uniform of the US Military should be considered off limits.
Like the majority of US Citizens, I vote not for a party--but for an individual. I don't like radicals on either side of the two political animals--but when a party supports an attack on a person who puts on the uniform--I am outraged. Part of the oath we took as military members is--I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States agaist all enemies foreign or domestic. I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me and the military code of military justice. So Help Me GOD! General Petraeus obeyed the orders given him--he did it with honor and he should be given the proper respect for following the orders given to him by the President and the Congress of the United States--God bless the young men and women who continue to serve this great country as a volunteer. [/quote] I agree completely. We'll have to live with the fact that some people will never grasp the difference between attacking Petraeus while he still wore the uniform and commanded troops in command with disputing the airbrushed version of a self-serving poltician's service record as he tried to make his time in uniform the reason he should be elected president.It’s clear that you don’t see any problem attacking a man’s service record, as long as he’s not a member of your political party.
Many of the Swiftboat Vets are Democrats. Look it up. Political party has nothing to do with it. The things they said are true. There were no depths to sink to. The mudslinging as you call it, I call it revealing the truth, was not for any political party, but because these guys had known Kerry, knew he was lying then and lying now. They couldn't stand the whitewashing he was getting from the press. I know several of the Swiftboat guys personally and they have hated Kerry since his Winter Soldier days. They never did anything about it because he was a harmless buffoon senator from Mass. But when it appeared that this jerk might actually have a shot a becoming Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces they had to do something to bring the real John Kerry to the attention of the voters....not the fake one the press wanted us to vote for. Kerry had not released all of his military records during the election and specifically his medical records or his discharge status, as he promised he would do. There are also no after action reports on the instances for which he obtained medals. This lack of after action reports is not normal at all. http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/20/171506.shtml http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Carchive%5C200409%5CSPE20040916a.html He finally signed the form 180 after he lost the election, but still not all records have been released. And at this point, who cares since this loser will never be able to run for President again. John Kerry obtained his purple hearts from minor wounds that were not deserving of purple heart status, lied and exagerated about his other medals, falsified combat reports and while in uniform conducted meetings with representatives from the opposition. http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200410260846.asp Kerry met with the two communist delegations to the Paris peace talks on at least two separate occasions, in 1970 and 1971. One delegation was from North Vietnam and the other was the Viet Cong’s provisional revolutionary government. According to Muravchik, Kerry endorsed the Viet Cong’s “peace plan,” which was to set a date for American force withdrawal in order to have U.S. POW’s returned. When back in the states, Kerry cited Viet Cong foreign minister Madame Binh for this extortionate swap.Kerry was still in uniform in those days. Some believe his disloyal action is the key reason why he didn’t receive an honorable discharge from the Navy until President Jimmy Carter’s general amnesty of 1977. Whether or not this last point is true,** it is fact that the young naval lieutenant met with the Viet Cong and took their position. Both the New York Times and Washington Post back this up.
** And we don't know if it is true or false, because Kerry has not released his discharge status or papers.