2007-09-20 14:06:34 · 26 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree. With all of the problems facing this country, Iraq War, economy, Mortgage crisis, Lousiana and Katrina victims still suffering. etc, they are spending time (and our tax payers dollars) Condemning somone's first amendment rights. I personnaly don't agree with the add, i think it went a bit to far. I also don't agree with Gen patreus's assesment. And it is my right to do so, as it is everyone esles to form an opinion. SO Congress now spends hundreds of thousands to condemn an opinon. That is not very American. Also , just hours before, the Dems sponsored a bill that condemned Political Attack ads, Like those waged against Sen Kerry and Max Cleland, The Republican's shot that one down before this went to vote.
2007-09-21 05:12:47 · answer #1 · answered by Myles D 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I caught the vote on CSPAN and was wondering the very same thing. Only thing I can figure is that because Bush condemned the ad in his speech, an eager sycophant introduced the resolution. I call that "butt snorkeling", but tact isn't my long suit. All but 25 ignored what the rest of us learned in high school civics class about freedom of speech... and voted to 'yes'. 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 22:38:03 · answer #2 · answered by sagacious_ness 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Same reason the Dems wasted the last year doing "investigations" instead of doing business for the country, passing non-binding resolutions condemning this or that - it makes a point. This time, the point is that 25 Democrats do NOT support the troups, they DO support a biased, anti-American organization that caters exclusively to elitist leftist sympathizers. AND it gets them on record as supporting it. If the Dems were so great, they would have spent more time doing business rather than witch-hunting, but they'd rather do the Halloween thing.
- The Gremlin Guy -
2007-09-20 21:24:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
'Our' government has forgotten what it exists for. Government exists to avoid trouble and to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. We don't hire a government to get us into wars....we hire them to keep us out of wars. Sometimes that's not possible, but nobody can convince me that the Iraqi war/occupation is in the interest of the 'greatest number'. Even if this dog of an occupation came off without a hitch as promised by the Bush Junta..a slam dunk...it would still not be in the interest of the American wage-earner. This administration absolutely must have an inside enemy to divert attention from the fact that they and they alone have screwed the pooch, flubbed the dub and totally #$%#ed up. And so when MoveOn or anyone says anything that can possibly be twisted into being characterized as 'not supporting the troops' or being unamerican, or appearing to be some kind of 'hate-america' BS, the reactionaries of the GOP launch their 'swift-boat' bozos..the right wing talk show nitwits and get their professional smear mongers to attack the messenger while avoidiing the message. The only thing wrong with the MoveOn ad was possibly the title...the rest of the ad, the part not talked about was about as accurate a piece as I've ever read. Let me be clear...the Bush Junta is the most incompetent, nasty, seriously retarded bunch of crackpots that have ever been handed the responsibility for 'our' country.....it wasn't just the general that 'betrayed us', but the entire Bush mafia and believe me, we're all going to pay for what this bunch of hyenas have done and continue to do! You may quote me!
2007-09-20 21:24:58 · answer #4 · answered by Noah H 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
There is no real reason it isn't even the senates job to say something is in poor taste and publically denounce anything. Frankly what the point of it is is beyond me since there is no way to sanction somebody for using freedom of the press and there never should be anybody punished for writing or speaking out against the war or the government for that matter.
2007-09-20 21:20:53 · answer #5 · answered by UriK 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They must have tired of bringing up flag burning amendments. Just another waste of time to keep from dealing with real issues. How much time did they spend crafting legislation condemning Ann Colter for her comments about the widows of those killed on 9-11?
Wonder why your rating is lower than Bush's? This could be one of the reasons you gutless twits.
2007-09-21 14:13:03 · answer #6 · answered by jmmy_crackscorn 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It puts senators on the record. They all claim to support the troops. But some of them are unwilling to stand up for a 4-Star General's honor. Americans have a right to know--their votes are now available to the public. Sorry if a little information gets you upset. By the way, what are the senators supposed to do about what you call "two wars"? Were you this passionate when so many of them wasted General Petraeus' time with seven-minute speeches?
2007-09-20 21:14:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
The republicans are just trying to gain brownie points with their hate filled and delusional base.
The swiftboat liars, Ann Colter, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilie should have been added to the censure resolution.
2007-09-21 05:45:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Because Move.On.org would rather see American defeated at war just so they can blame all the problems in the world on Bush and other Republicans.
2007-09-20 21:31:51 · answer #9 · answered by ddey65 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
MoveOn smearing our generals is the same downhil slid we made in Vietnam.
As far as Bush or elected officals are fair game.
However Congress voted on him to go do a job.
Now you have Hillary calling him a liar.
At some point you have to say enough is enough.
2007-09-20 21:19:35 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋