I'm looking for the link to the story that talks about how the Democratic Leadership and Democratic Candidates admitted to being wrong with how they treated Petraeus . You know , the one where they said that they should've let the General speak first , and then make their determination on whether or not they believed him . The link that shows the Democratic Presidential Candidates condemning that Moveon ad because they don't want to have any connection or affiliation with an organization which subverts the integrity of an American 4-Star General before the man even speaks .
Some user told me they were honorable about this and I don't believe that other user . So I need a link .
BTW , democrats blocked a resolution vote calling for condemnation of that ad . 'Blocked' ? Ya mean suppressed free speech ? Can't even talk about it or democratically vote on it ? But democrats always tell me they're pro free speech ?
Yes , they have confused me those little rascals .
Who can help ?
2007-09-12 07:03:29 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
UPDATE -- Save yourself the time , because I don't think that link exists. . . . WHY ? -- Because the Democratic Presidential Candidates are afraid of a website .
2007-09-12 07:17:31 · update #1
Wishful thinking and by the response you have gotten so far the democrats are in bed with moveon.org and they will never say anything against them no matter what.
Hey there is a bright side.
The more moveon.org helps the DNC the farther they will go into the minoritiy status.
2007-09-12 07:17:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
This was the only thing I found regarding a denouncement from Democrats. I think they should denounce it as a whole myself. I don't like smear tactics from Republicans as it is, I don't want to see the Democrats follow in those footsteps.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/petraeus.moveon/index.html
Congressional Democrats showed an eagerness to distance themselves from the ad.
Asked early Monday if this was the right message for his party to send, a member of the Democratic leadership, speaking on background, curtly answered, "No."
Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, called the ad "over the top."
"I don't like any kind of characterizations in our politics that call into question any active duty, distinguished general who I think under any circumstances serves with the best interests of our country," said Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential candidate and a decorated veteran.
"I think there are a lot of legitimate questions that need to be asked, a lot of probing that ought to take place; there's a lot of legitimate accountability that needs to be achieved. It ought to be done without casting any aspersions on anyone's character or motives," he added.
2007-09-12 07:39:14 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Try this:
http://www.google.com/advanced_search
Democrats blocking a resolution to condemn the ad is an infringement of free speech? What about the ad itself being covered by free speech? Are we overlooking that? Or does free speech now only apply to those that support what we want to hear?
BTW... Rather than condemning the ad, they could have easily countered some of the negative effect by having Patraeus and Crocker give *sworn* testimony. Instead, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was arrested after he shouted out a request that Petraeus and Crocker be sworn in before testifying. What happened to his free speech rights? The testimonies of Petraeus and Crocker were NOT under oath. Why not? Since Bush has drawn parallels to Vietnam, let's draw another one: General Westmoreland testified before Congress in 1967, to report (verb) on the status of the Vietnam War, and he did so under oath:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/091007a.html
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1423249
2007-09-12 07:36:40 · answer #3 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
i think of i might desire to pull at the same time a set of little video clips from issues that Republicans have suggested and carried out in the final 12 months and it might make you all appear like anxious, hateful, anti-working people, anti-American fascists; so your factor is mute and is at best grasping at straws. STRAW guy is what you do best Bong. No substance purely entire BS...it suits your character nicely!
2016-12-13 07:14:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First I've heard of it. Sounds like wishful thinking.
2007-09-12 07:11:56 · answer #5 · answered by jrldsmith 4 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Oh NO! Not the free speech argument from the far right. Lol!
2007-09-12 07:12:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 4⤋
Judging by your delusional nature, possible a psychiatrist could help.
2007-09-12 07:15:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋
The way you're flogging this non-issue - I'd say psychological help may be of more use to you.
2007-09-12 07:11:17 · answer #8 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 7⤊ 5⤋