Those who voted to support MoveOn's smear:
NAYs ---25
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)
Romney said it best:
"Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief."
2007-09-20 13:10:38 · 31 answers · asked by charbatch 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's a matter of politics plain and simple. The vast majority of Americans both left and right feel that MoveOn crosses the line of common decency far too often and yet there is a deafening silence regarding them until now.
Only the truely far left conspiracy theory wackos really believe or support MoveOn. The Dems who don't condemn MoveOn don't care about free speech. They simply fear the power of MoveOn and the wrath of George Soros.
2007-09-21 04:41:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scared? Even a blind man can see that that's a Republican faking to be one of Hillary's Democratic supporters. And for him to use a Hispanic woman to try and fool the Latinos is doubly ridiculous. Yet, McCain won't even vote for his own amnesty bill. He got no love for the Latino community. He just wants their votes. Isn't is sad that McCain cannot talk on the issues? You conservatives and moderate conservatives are the ones who should be scared. Your candidate only has smear tactics. Now that's pathetic.
2016-05-19 21:23:47 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a sad state of affairs when the President of the United States, who twice swore an oath to defend and protect the US Constitution, condemns the First Amendment right of free speech. Then an eager bunch of myopic sycophants introduce a resolution to do the same. All but those 25 ignored what the rest of us learned in high school civics class about freedom of speech. I'm disgusted by the stupidity and short-sightedness behind this action and the 'gutless wonders' who supported it. If they could think critically they might have considered:
-- Taking a hard look at the ad and the information used as a basis for the ad text:
http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html
-- Closely examine the numbers. For example, US sources say 165 died in Baghdad; Iraqi Int. Ministry says 428 (from morgue and hospital records). A significant reduction in violence is possible when one does not count sectarian violence or car bombings. Using the entry point of a bullet to the head (back vs. front) to determine if a body is included in the death toll... is that just 'war math' or "cooking the books"?
--- GAO Report (non-partisan):
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071195.pdf
--- Testimony, recent reports not always on same page
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/09/11/testimony_recent_reports_not_always_on_same_page/
--- Another side of the civil war in Anbar:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1424208
-- Skelton condemn the ad on the first day of testimony, but did nothing to lessen the controversy and doubt surrounding the Patraeus report. Instead, he had former CIA analyst Ray McGovern arrested after McGovern shouted out a request that Petraeus and Crocker be sworn in before testifying. The testimonies of Petraeus and Crocker were NOT under oath. Why not?
-- Bush drew parallels to Vietnam, let's draw another one: General Westmoreland testified before Congress in 1967, to report 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
I suppose it should come as no surprise since some of these same 'representatives of the public trust' buckled to Bush before. Most recently, trading our civil liberties as a commodity to ensure their vacations started on time.
2007-09-20 16:24:42 · answer #3 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Why did they have a vote about that? Why did they waste time and tax payer money voting on a political ad by an independent group of political activists? The Congress and Senate had nothing to do with the ad. Support the troops has become a meaningless phrase in all of this from both Democrats and Republicans. They need to forget this bs and start finding some solutions immediately or they are worse than worthless. Both parties. 0% approval today.
2007-09-20 13:32:33 · answer #4 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
Last I looked the Bill of Rights still said that the people had a right to speak out even if the majority does not agree. 25 brave people voted for freedom and liberty and upheld the Bill of Rights.
2007-09-21 08:37:06 · answer #5 · answered by FoxRanger 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
What does it matter it? How is it the senates job to ***** about how people exercise their 1st amendment rights? The fact that this even came up to any sort of vote is nothing short of ludicrous. It is the equivelent of the Senate wagging a finger at Moveon.org so what is the point.
Besides the stupidity of the entire thing a vote not to condemn anything isn't a vote of approval for that thing. That is a strawman argument. Not everyone has to have strong feelings one way or another on such an issue and even if you disagree with something you don't have to condemn it.
2007-09-20 13:22:33 · answer #6 · answered by UriK 5 · 6⤊ 5⤋
What did you expect? Hillary is in it for the power/glory/money while destroying our system of government in favor of the failed socialist model.
2007-09-21 04:36:28 · answer #7 · answered by credo quia est absurdum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it wasn't a smear, it was the truth.
Thank you for the list! It is incredibly encouraging to see that some of our elected representatives are finally growing some courage.
2007-09-21 01:58:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
They called Karl Rove and got his OK and some pointers on how to swift boat in a political crisis.Unfortunately, the only recourse were the facts, so there you have it. Facts, a terrible thing to ponder.
Personally, I cannot wait till we get a better President. George Bush just keeps the excuses flowing, it's all he knows and it's hard work. Even a liberal from Princeton cannot assuage the disgruntled masses, and the BUCK has finally stopped.
2007-09-20 13:29:03 · answer #9 · answered by oldmechanicsrule 3 · 3⤊ 5⤋
I didn't know there was a vote on it. If this is true then Hillary has definitely messed up this time. Along with all the others who voted for this.
2007-09-20 13:18:22 · answer #10 · answered by Erinyes 6 · 7⤊ 4⤋