Clinton Sides With MoveOn.org in Senate Vote, Obama Ducks

I'm sorry that you feel that knowing how your Senator stands on an issue is a waste of time.

This isn't an issue, that's the problem.

If you want to know where your Senator stands on this topic, you could always ask. To have it be a bill in the Senate is a colossal waste of time, energy and money. Worse yet is that it bore fruit for people to keep this propping up this decaying horse and send the firing squads out on candidates. Exactly as desired.

I have to agree with Martin Corbin here.

I personally thought the tactics of move-on were extremely distateful.

But do we really want the US Senate voting for or against political ads? Personally, I do not. I don't care if its move-on or swift boaters. The Senate needs to debate the real issues, not try and score points by voting on meaningless resolutions.

I used to hate all the posturing during an election year. However, now that the election cycle is a full 2 years, this kind of thing will be non-stop.

A waste of time? Congress votes on things like this all of the time. It's no more a waste of time than Congress voting on a nonbinding resolution to end the war or a Charles Rangel sponsored vote to re-institute the draft that not even he himself voted for.

Moveon.org is a political outfit who stuck themselves right in the middle of the debate with that pathetic and childish ad. Moveon.org raises money for politicians and political agendas - it's well within our interest as citizens to know which of our elected policymakers who may ultimately vote or pursue agendas regarding the direction of the war are siding with these prepubescent smear merchants over the testimony of the general in charge of the war.

Of course it stinks because moveon put Democrats in the position of either having to denounce moveon's tactics and hide what the Democrats really are about or supporting it and risking a public backlash. There is no mature reason for any senator to not vote to condemn this ad - it served no purpose, it added nothing to the debate, it did nothing to contradict or dismiss Petraeus's testimony, it offered no substance of information - it was 4th grade playground name calling and they spent tens of thousands of dollars to show the country just how gosh darn clever they are. Even if a senator supports or receives support from moveon, there would be no political fallout from stating that this stupid ad was beneath even them. Unless of course they fear moveon.

Why would they? What's moveon going to do? Support someone else?

While moveon has a dismal record of actually getting Democrats elected, I'm sure they can be very effective at making sure Democrats don't get elected.

Anyone out there who thinks this vote is a waste of time or thought the ad was a great thing or think the Dems should be up front and open about their support for it - tell me why. We know what the negative implications of this ad are - what are the positives? What did it possibly gain anyone, either intellectually or politically?

I'm recalling a line by Jon Stewart toward those Code Pink Cows who disrupted the testimony and acted like a bunch of drooling animals: "You're not helping!"

Did moveon help anyone?

You don't have to agree with the ad in order to disagree with the vote.

I expect Congress to take relevant political decisions, not to discuss some childish and misplaced ad. This vote was an opportunity to score cheap points in the patriotism department. Every single second that went into the preparation, discussion and voting could have been spent on actually meaningful politics. You know, the kind of politics that actually has an impact on people's lives. This resolution is just one more example of how willingly Congress is allowing itself to become marginalised and irrelevant.

I'm sorry that you feel that knowing how your Senator stands on an issue is a waste of time.

I know how my Senator (Obama) stands on this... it isn't worth his time.

Ya, that's a good point ajs, if it's not the first time, it's okay to keep doing it.

Playing politics... That word is tossed around like a baseball these days. Well here is a clear cut definition of paying politics. One group says horrible things and there is a vote in the senate, another says equally egregious things there is no vote, hell it's never even brought up. @!$%# as they might, the entire moveOn censure thing is retarded, we have a thing called free speech, and speech that you really hate is a true measure of what you think of free speech. Apparently some people only like free speech when it's speech they can get behind, and that the government should be involved in censuring all other free speech. But when it's something they hate, well, that's a different story, a story that played out in Germany in the 30's and 40's. I don't want that for my country, so as voters we should censure those that went along with this BS, and vote them out for wasting our time.

Most of the time I disagree with Obama but on this a completely agree. It's a waste of time to play on the voters. Get out of the sand box and get back to screwing up the budget, the border, and the war.

The news keeps on getting better and better:

Many Democratic strategists were privately furious at the group for launching an attack on a member of the military rather than Bush, arguing that it gave Republicans a point on which to attack the Democrats and to rally around the administration's war policy. The displeasure underscores the uneasy alliance between MoveOn and the party. MoveOn, after its rather guerrilla start, has increasingly become part of the Democratic establishment in Washington. It has donated money and lent its Washington director, Thomas Mattzie, to a coalition of liberal groups with major funding from wealthy donors that organizes in an office on K Street to promote opposition to the war.

The group's conference calls often include aides to House and Senate Democratic leaders, and executive director Eli Pariser and Mattzie have also had meetings with some of the party's 2008 presidential candidates, although MoveOn is not likely to endorse in the primary process. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former vice president Al Gore have spoken at MoveOn events.

It was a statement - if it was so irrelevant then there should have been no issue in condemning the ad.

Perhaps it's not as irrelevant as people are making it out to be.

moveon.org staked a very public position on the most important and controversial debate we have going and launched a juvenile attack against a general who had unanimous bipartisan support and was not a political figure - and no one denies that moveon is in bed with the DNC and have a lot of influence in the party. It is most certainly in the public's interest to know where their elected politicians stand and who is pulling their strings, especially when that 'who' is a fundraiser, a vocal opponent of the war and thrusts themselves right into the spotlight and cross a very clear line.

This whining about the vote itself is nothing but a self-defense mechanism being used by people who know that the line was crossed and that it had the potential to help no one or nothing but rather damage the only vehicle people have in ending the war or at least in undermining Bush.
If it was a vote condemning Fox News or Rush Limbaugh or Focus on the Family or Swift Boat Veterans, I wonder how much passion people would have in their opposition to the vote itself. Next to none, methinks.

...not a political figure

You are wrong... Bush politicized this General the day he told everyone to wait until the September report (and repeated it over and over again every time he was asked about the war). You notice there was nothing shocking or new to come out of his testimony. Everyone knew what he was going to say before he said it, even Bush. We knew he would omit anything that wasn't working (the entire "new" strategy) by claiming "there was still hard work to do" (the new tag line for this administration). We knew he would tell us how great Anbar was doing, @!$%#, I heard that on the news in July.

Bush stuck him out there, center stage, because if Bush were on stage, people would just boo him off. Moveon was childish, I didn't like the add. It was a waste of money and time, just like the censure vote but that does not mean this General's testimony added any substance to the debate. He just repeated what the President wanted us to hear.

Martin, generals give testimony to Congress all of the time. Petraeus was not the first to brief Congress on progress in Iraq. We are running his plan. His job, part of his agreement with the president and with Congress was to give a report on how his plan was working. Not to concoct new things to say, not to comment on other aspects of Iraq, not to make predictions, not to find things right and wrong. His role was to point out where he was succeeding and where he wasn't, which is what he did.

You heard it on the news in July? Okay. And? He's supposed to leave it out of his report because gosh darn it, fair minded people are already aware or are sick of it? People don't get tired of hearing about success stories and positive news in Iraq...unless they're the kind of people who oppose success stories and positive news in Iraq. I'm not even sure how you come to the conclusion that not mentioning Anbar would even be an option, unless Petraeus is insane.

So no, just because he serves Bush, it does not make him a political figure nor a legitimate political target. Unless you hate the military. That's the only reason I could see for someone making the stretch that an honored and admired four star general was fair game for political attacks. Petreaus didn't politicize anything. He gave the Dems some of the answers they were looking for. He didn't even shoot Harry Reid for telling his soldiers that they lost the war, much less mention it.

Generals serve the president. It doesn't matter if his name is Petraeus or not. Any general giving testimony as to the progress of his mission would be branded a betrayer or whatever nasty word moveon can rhyme with his or her last name.

Support the troops.

I guess we've never looked the politics of the situation even nearly the same. Why would it happen now...

I just figured that this testimony would have been the last straw. There is absolutely no progress. So what, tribal leaders are fighting AQI, that means nothing toward the goal of democracy and function in Iraq. We have gotten nowhere. How much longer, Otto, are you willing to tolerate this country fighting wars like this? We removed Saddam and found nothing. We pushed Humpty off the wall and can't seem to put him back together again. How much longer should we try? I hope to see you here in a few years and see your reaction when the troops leave is half a decade. Your reaction if somehow this mess is sorted out by the type of leadership required to pull off a miracle.

Bush is a failure. You continue to support failed policy. The only reason for this, as you are not illogical or irrational in your argument, if you disdain for the alternative. It can't be the plan, because the planning you support has failed time and time again. And it's not the democrats fault. He had unyielding authority for over four years.

Who's watching Hillary? My memory isn't so great, but I am pretty sure that she helped launch this war and has taken every possible position on it since.

Vs. how many points he lost from people who might actually want to know where he stands on this and why he's running away from it. Any senator with the decency to condemn it has no reason to avoid the vote and a presidential candidate could only gain support from condemning it. It doesn't take courage to not show up.

he didn't "not show up;" he left and gave a statement about specifically why he refused to engage.

Resolutions like this do nothing but affirm the cynicism people have toward our legislators. They're evidence that our representatives are more interested in scoring political points than creating laws that will actually mean something to us.

it does take courage to swim against the current, and when everybody else followed like sheep, Obama took the more difficult path. The easy thing to do would have been to keep his butt planted in his seat and raise his hand at the right time.

This is off the subject somewhat (and directed to anyone who might know), but regarding the Chinese connection, wasn't there one with Bill Clinton or was that Al Gore?

Clinton had Johnny Chung. Gore was a Buddhist.

Man, is this a great Friday or what?

Yeah our congress looks like a bunch of idiots and it's a great day in America. That seems so very sad to me. Reminds me of Lincolns speech, paraphrasing Jesus.

A house divided against itself cannot stand.

So little changes in time, and we never seem to learn.

I think that Clinton also had Charlie Trie.

Right. Charlie Trie was the Little Rock restauranteur. Johnny Chung was the bagman for the PRC gun-runners. And then, of course, there was Johnny Huang who was the conduit for the Riady boys from Indonesia. The Clintons have always been very cosmopolitan fundraisers.

that's the same commander guy that's been wrong about virtually everything pertaining to the iraq war and subsequent policing mission since, keep that in mind.

congress has the responsibility to make and pass laws. If the constitution says anything to support your assertion about defending the honor of the commander in chief, I'd like to see it.

that's the same commander guy that's been wrong about virtually everything pertaining to the iraq war and subsequent policing mission since, keep that in mind.

Cite your evidence.

The president saying that major combat operations in Iraq have ended back in 2003 for starters.

I am talking about the General.

The president saying that major combat operations in Iraq have ended back in 2003 for starters.

Back then, they had many tanks running through the country, the Air Force and it's support crews were running many sorties. Are you saying that the current level of military operations is the same as it was back in 2003? What is your definition of major combat operations?

What is your definition of major combat operations?

10 thousand or more soldiers engaged in combat, what's yours?

Thank you General Greck! Man why aren't you helping out over there instead of randomly spouting of bs. I'm calling the JCoS right now and telling them greck is my guy. Greck can lead the way to victory. Can you tell me when the next news conference will be? Man, I hear about people falling through the cracks of the system but they missed the boat on you. Where'd you study? The War College? Annapolis? Whose style do you prefer, Leonidas? Alexander? Adolphus? Perhaps even Khan? I've gathered the kiddies 'round the PC for your next smithereen of doctrine.

10 thousand or more soldiers engaged in combat, what's yours?

My quick definition of major combat operations would be something like (minimums):

100k troops deployed
2 or more aircraft carriers deployed
1000 aircraft deployed conducting 500 sorties per day
200 tanks deployed

It would be interesting to hear from someone in the military.

IvyMike
I was asked how i would define "major combat operations" I figure 20k people in harms way...
know what? nevermind, let me just respond by saying "your mama"

ComSen,
indeed, it would be interesting to see if there is an acutal definition.

I disagree,
his refusal to participate in this, to me, made him look more dignified than the rest. I'm more likely to vote for him because of it.

It's not just his lack of voting... It's his limited media appearances, and now, what I come to see as lacking a real plan. He's running simply on the "I'm different" platform.

I kind of agree about his platform being kinda limited to his ideology, truthfully, I think he'll make an awesome president in a few years; his time hasn't really come yet, but the atmosphere is so ripe for change that he may be forced to peak early.

Honestly, I think the best scenario is Hillary or Edwards with Obama as running mate.

I agree Martin - he's limiting his debate participation and he's putting forth incredibly odd and nonsensical foreign policy initiatives. Anything could happen but I doubt Hillary is too worried about him anymore. He peaked and now he's crashing and burning. And while a few people who probably liked the moveon ad anyway think it's honorable to hide from making a stand against the smear of a general, I don't think a majority of fence-sitters see things that way.

...I don't think a majority of fence-sitters see things that way.

Agreed. Pretty soon those butt cheeks will get tired and they will have to fall one way or the other.

On that note, I would much rather see someone take a position on the subject than dismiss it. Seems cowardly, although I didn't really agree with the vote in the first place.

Clinton is well on her way back onto my "I won't hate myself for voting for you" list.

Lol, my sentiments exactly. Too funny.

insertname - it IS new. Where can you point in history to a general leading a military action being smeared childishly in an ad in one of the nations largest newspapers and then having elected politicians refusing to condemn it?

Petraeus is NOT a political figure. The ad served no useful purpose to anyone and no, current sitting military leadership who are leading men and women in harms way, has no political bents and is by some accounts doing a good job is attacked in this weasely, juvenile manner.

Funny, we go after John Kerry or Max Cleland, politicians and candidates who run on their military backgrounds (and some have argued, misrepresent their past heroics) and we are committing some sin by criticizing or attacking someone with a military background but attacking the general currently in charge of the war (and it wasn't a criticism or analysis - it was a stupid, pointless attack) is just politics as usual.

You say "whether it was appropriate or not". Are you an elected Democrat? Way to take a stand.

Was it appropriate or not? Do you think it served some substantive purpose? Did it change minds? Did it add new information or contradict Petraeus's testimony? Did it reveal something important?

Do you think it was appropriate or are you going to symbolize why you support Obama's non-position on this?

I think it is more appropriate to call a public figure names (They don't have to be elected - Can I not make fun on Paris Hilton? - Also, wouldn't the fact that it is "juvenile" not make it all the better to shrug off if Petraeus were not clearly vulnerable to such criticism?) than to question the honorable service of a candidate who was awarded a medal for his sacrifice? (I refer to Sen. Kerry and the lame Swift Boat deal.)

I don't think that the ad itself was appropriate. However, I often disagree with many advertisements, but don't think that the Senate should censure them - after free speech is still free.