Wednesday, September 12, 2007


No Democratic Censure of moveOn ad....

Better never Impune Murtha though....
Democratic congressional leaders and the party's presidential candidates yesterday refused to repudiate a liberal group's ad questioning Gen. David H. Petraeus' character.
Capitol Hill Democrats rejected a call for votes in both chambers to condemn the attack newspaper ad (pdf download), run by, saying Republicans are trying to take attention off what they call the president's failed Iraq policy.
Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the California Democrat "wished [] wouldn't have done that ad," but declined to comment further.
A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, also declined to comment on the ad.
The ad that ran in the New York Times on Monday features a photo of the general, who is giving testimony on Iraq to Congress this week, and the headline "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?"
Republicans had hoped to force Democrats into the uncomfortable position of voting for a measure to officially denounce an organization that has helped raise millions for party candidates in recent elections.
"This smear campaign consisted of entirely unwarranted and fallacious attacks, and sought to impugn the name of a highly respected man of integrity," said Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican.
Mr. Cornyn introduced the Senate resolution yesterday condemning the attacks that was rejected by Democrats.
More proof of how much the democrats "support" the military.

If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, pound on the table and confuse the issue.

Such is the MO of the widestance party in debating the great issues generated by the Iraq fiasco. $200 million per day so Bush can pass this mess on to some Democrat, and you guys are whining about a stupid ad. I'm going to cut a check just to piss you off.
Morning Peter.

It's simply a matter of respect. There is nowhere near the outcry from the right, regarding this insulting ad, as there was by the left when Murtha's loyalties were challenged, on the FIRST occasion that he denegrated the troops. To paraphrase..." How DARE you question the patriotism of a vietnam vet ", could be heard from the bat caves around the country.

Now, this ad is just ridiculous, and rather than complaining about the ad itself, because it's just not surprising coming from moveOn......the issue at hand is the tacit approval of the ad, by the democrats as a whole, by NOT refuting it as the garbage that it is.

Lastly, stroke a check to whomever you want Peter, but for the reason of just wanting to piss "us" off, is dumb. That's the kind of mentality, on a micro scale, that has perpetuated the turnstile of backstabbing BS in Washington, and do nothing Congresses.

But if you are just trying to veil your actual support for moveOn type moonbattery, by rationalizing the donation to piss us off, you could at least be honest with yourself.

Good to see you dude !
Widestance party?
Roger, I believe that Peter B was making a Larry Craig allusion.

maybe not.

But don't let that be the only thing commented on, regarding Peter's whiffing of the point.

Let's see. W smearing John McCain in 2000. Republicans smearing Max Cleland. Let's not forget Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Unknot your shorts there Mark. He who lives in a glass house should dress in the cellar.
Hey there Tony,

Just curious, did you actually see the ad with Max Cleland, in order to hear the copy, or are you just regurgitating Markos' talking points ? While out of context, the imagery of Cleland next to OBL and saddam is absurd, but when I saw the ad run, I didn't even put the picture into play, because of what was being said. I live here in Georgia, and the same exact AD copy was run on the radio, with NO imagery obviously. What was being said was true and made sense....thus the left wing reaction.

McCain's patriotism was questioned in 2000, with reference to a "black baby " ? No it was not. Not a big fan of that tactic at all, but it's not at all what I am showing democrats AND republicans decried that BS, regarding McCain.

No, what I am showing here is the approval of what moveOn did, by the democrats. I said before, the ad is not surprising, coming from moveOn.....and I guess I am really wondering if the lack of denouncement of the ad by democrats, should even surprise me at this point.

Guess not.

So, Tony, do YOU feel like Petraeus is lying ? I certainly do not, and the embedded journalists like Michael Yon, or Michael Totten seem to see gains first hand, and report them fairly, unlike Green Zone restricted NY Timers, feeding innacuracies to the masses...daily.

Wonder why moveOn got a 116K coupon for the ad from the Grey Lady anyway ?
Speaking of smears, I find it interesting that no one here has commented on Hugh Hewitt's claim that Fred Thompson is dying of cancer. Do you guys "approve" of that statement?

Don't get me wrong though, I do appreciate your ability to obfuscate the real issues.
"It's simply a matter of respect"

Some are saying that if we had given Colin Powell less respect and been a little more critacal back in 2003 when he was peddling the WMD BS to the UN, maybe this fiasco could have been avoided.

who is obfuscating ? The issue is that moveOn smeared Petraeus, and the dems basically approve. What part of that do you not get ?
The swift boat vets merely recounted the facts and attempted to correct Kerry's lies about his service in Vietnam - since when is telling the truth a smear?

Even if the examples listed are fair comment, it does not excuse the behavior of Moveon and those who tacitly or overtly supported the ad.

The real point is that Moveon operatives have said that they "own' the democrat party. It is very telling given those claims that Hillary, Barak et al are remaining silent and by their silence not only condoning the ad, but giving credence to the claim itself.

I like John McCain's criticism - if Hillary, Barack, et al can't even find the moral fortitude to stand up to Moveon, how can they possibly be counted on to have the fortitude necessary to be President, let alone, Commander in Chief.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?