Congress Overwhelming Condemns Moveon.org Ad

[LiddyRules]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_go_co/petraeus_moveon

And you wonder why their approval rating is at 11%. Seriously.

[Stankfoot]

And you wonder why their approval rating is at 11%. Seriously.

Because in the Senate 49 of them are Republican and block them from getting any meaningful work done?

[LiddyRules]

Because in the Senate 49 of them are Republican and block them from getting any meaningful work done?

It was a 341-79 vote, in the House that passed this resolution. Yeah, it's only the Republicans who are the problem.

[BMoses]

I don't understand why this is even being addressed by the senate. If a Carlos Mencia Bud Light commercial sucks ass are the going to condemn it as well? I understand it isn't quite the same but it seems like a waste of time.

[SinA]

Good. I'm glad to hear that Congress is finally doing what they should have been doing for over 230 years... overseeing the press. The media is just way too free in this country, telling all sorts of stories about the government's intricate and discrete dealings with a small number of wealthy corporations, and it's really starting to damage our interests in keeping society divided in clear racial/social/economic classes.

[Bulldogcakes]

Did they also condemn the NYTimes for giving them the ad space at a cut rate price? Funny, they never seem to do that for anyone on the right.

Some days its just impossible to defend the NY Times as a first rate newspaper. Even the Times' own ombudsman blasted them for the move. I guess they get some credit for that, but not much.

[Tallman388]

While I agree the ad was a stupid waste of time and probably made the NYT look as dumb as the ad, why does Congress give a shit? Petraeus probably got a kick out of it knowing that somebody would waste that much money on him, and there are far more important issues to worry about than ad space in the Times. 11% indeed.

[Bulldogcakes]

While I agree the ad was a stupid waste of time and probably made the NYT look as dumb as the ad, why does Congress give a shit? Petraeus probably got a kick out of it knowing that somebody would waste that much money on him, and there are far more important issues to worry about than ad space in the Times. 11% indeed.

You're right, Congress really should have better things to do than this. But at least when they're wasting time on shit like this they're not passing another law which restricts more of our freedoms or confiscates more of our money.

Waste away, baby. Beats the shit out of what these assholes do the rest of the year.

[Tallman388]

You're right, Congress really should have better things to do than this. But at least when they're wasting time on shit like this they're not passing another law which restricts more of our freedoms or confiscates more of our money.

Waste away, baby. Beats the shit out of what these assholes do the rest of the year.

This is true, I like my money where it belongs, in my pocket. Then again, I could sure use most of August off to pretend like I've done something the other 11 months. Maybe there's something to this Congress thing. In the words of Krusty: Does selling out to big oil count as legislation?

[LiddyRules]

You're right, Congress really should have better things to do than this. But at least when they're wasting time on shit like this they're not passing another law which restricts more of our freedoms or confiscates more of our money.

Waste away, baby. Beats the shit out of what these assholes do the rest of the year.

I disagree on both counts.

1) Anything Congress does costs us money so even if it's not taking more money from us, it is still wasting our money.
2) For Congress to not just issue a condemnation but for it to pass with flying colors against a MEDIA outlet, while it might not directly "restrict our freedom" it does not bode well for the future.

[sailor]

I disagree on both counts.

1) Anything Congress does costs us money so even if it's not taking more money from us, it is still wasting our money.
2) For Congress to not just issue a condemnation but for it to pass with flying colors against a MEDIA outlet, while it might not directly "restrict our freedom" it does not bode well for the future.

moveon is a political organization not a media outlet. i don't think they said anything about the times unless i missed it.

[BMoses]

moveon is a political organization not a media outlet. i don't think they said anything about the times unless i missed it.

While it was useless to condemn the ad (It is pretty much pointless for Congress to condemn anything), the resolution only contained language condemning the ad and moveon. I think they purposely avoided the NYT because of such free press issues.

[Bulldogcakes]

moveon is a political organization not a media outlet. i don't think they said anything about the times unless i missed it.

They didn't, at least not in that article. Which was kinda the whole point of my first post.

Hello wall.

[PapaBear]

Wow. My feelings would be really hurt, if Congress condemned me.

[SatCam]

Moveon.org Doesnt Support Our Troops!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Recyclerz]

Congress was stupid to bring this to a vote.

Move On was stupid to attack Petraeus, who is just doing his job, when they should be attacking Dubya, Cheney, Rice et al. who are making the god-forsaken policy decisions.

The Republicans are stupid to think the change the subject tricks are going to work as well anymore. Really, unless you are a NY times shareholder, why do you give a fuck as to what they're charging for ads? But we need a Congressional investigation about it? I don't think so.

I found this entertaining. Some Republican House back bencher gets sent up to MSNBC to spread the word and gets her ass handed to her.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054108.php

[BMoses]

Wow. My feelings would be really hurt, if Congress condemned me.

Well then stop giving them reasons to do it

[Yerdaddy]

When John McCain said the Swift Boaters were disgracing all Vietnam vets with their ads and called on Bush to condemn them he wouldn't and the Republican Congress didn't even consider condemning them. But now you've got a majority of Dems willing to condemn a liberal group and it just shows that the Republican party, right now, is a party of extremists and the Democrats are moderates. But that's been an obvious truth for a while now.

[epo]

Thank you Bill Clinton.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFzs_qCEGxY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFzs_qCEGxY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[epo]

I found this entertaining. Some Republican House back bencher gets sent up to MSNBC to spread the word and gets her ass handed to her.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054108.php

The You Tube on that is pretty fucking sweet. This member of the House obviously isn't really for primetime and Shuster does a great job shoving her hypocrisy in her face.

It's just a shame some members of the media finally woke up after a good 5 year slumber.

[Snacks]

Thank you Bill Clinton.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFzs_qCEGxY"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vFzs_qCEGxY" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

But, But, But he got his dick sucked by an intern and lied! OMG we are so much better with out him!!!

On a serious note, this is just another example how Clinton was the best president of the last 25+ years. He may have lied about getting a blow job (which he had every right, it was a witch hunt and they went after his personal life and they had no business doing they made something legal become something illegal. )
But when it came to saying or doing what was right for the people he always did and sad the right things. It didnt matter about party lines. He was so much more moderate down the middle then people give him credit. The real far right conservatives went after him and hated him because the country loved him and they needed to bring him down a notch to get support.

[A.J.]

On a serious note, this is just another example how Clinton was the best president of the last 25+ years. He may have lied about getting a blow job (which he had every right, it was a witch hunt and they went after his personal life and they had no business doing they made something legal become something illegal. )
But when it came to saying or doing what was right for the people he always did and sad the right things. It didnt matter about party lines. He was so much more moderate down the middle then people give him credit. The real far right conservatives went after him and hated him because the country loved him and they needed to bring him down a notch to get support.

Oh please, that's because he played it safe. Governance by polls, not principals.

[Crispy123]

Oh please, that's because he played it safe. Governance by polls, not principals.

That is kind of the point of democracy isn't it???

[spoon]

Good. I'm glad to hear that Congress is finally doing what they should have been doing for over 230 years... overseeing the press. The media is just way too free in this country, telling all sorts of stories about the government's intricate and discrete dealings with a small number of wealthy corporations, and it's really starting to damage our interests in keeping society divided in clear racial/social/economic classes.

I'd say that about covers it.

[A.J.]

That is kind of the point of democracy isn't it???

In the Legislative Branch maybe, not the Executive.

[LiddyRules]

I know that Moveon.org is a political group but they are going after them for an ad they ran. Congress officially condemning a) a political organization and b) a newspaper ad honestly bothers me. I know nothing will "come" from this but for them to go on record to officially condemn a relatively harmless political group who publishes an ad against their policy and to give General Company Man a great big hug simply pisses me off and worries me.

And yes, the GOP might have started this ball rolling but I don't blame them. This is what they do. This is what they're good at. And this is how they politick. But for those cowardly fucking Democrats to fall lock step in line yet again reminds me why I hate that entire worthless party. They have both houses of Congress yet still they let the Republicans walk all over them and control the show. How are you supposed to respect that? It would be like if Lamda-Lamda-Lamda simply gave up after Ted McGinley and John Goodman wrecked their house in Revenge of the Nerds.

[Bulldogcakes]

When John McCain said the Swift Boaters were disgracing all Vietnam vets with their ads and called on Bush to condemn them he wouldn't and the Republican Congress didn't even consider condemning them. But now you've got a majority of Dems willing to condemn a liberal group and it just shows that the Republican party, right now, is a party of extremists and the Democrats are moderates. But that's been an obvious truth for a while now.

Nah. What I think this shows is that Petraeus is widely viewed in Washington as an honest man doing a difficult (if not impossible) job by folks on both sides of the aisle. He has overwhelming bi-partisan support, which was why he was nominated in the first place.

He was confirmed with an 81-0 vote by the Senate.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus)
The only extremist here is Moveon.org. But what else is new.

[high fly]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_go_co/petraeus_moveon

And you wonder why their approval rating is at 11%. Seriously.

I don't wonder at all.
The major issue of the day is Iraq.
The American people want us out of Iraq.
During the last election, the American people expressed their will.

The Republicans are still blocking the will of the American people and will get hammered in the next election for it.

Right-wingers love the low Ciongressional approval ratings because it distracts from Bush's Watergate-era Nixonian approval ratings.

[scottinnj]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070926/ap_on_go_co/petraeus_moveon

And you wonder why their approval rating is at 11%. Seriously.


Well, that is a start to make some improvements-I say kudos to the Senate!

[high fly]

Nah. What I think this shows is that Petraeus is widely viewed in Washington as an honest man doing a difficult (if not impossible) job by folks on both sides of the aisle. He has overwhelming bi-partisan support, which was why he was nominated in the first place.

He was confirmed with an 81-0 vote by the Senate.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus)
The only extremist here is Moveon.org. But what else is new.

Petraeus' past cheerleading for the Bush administration shows he is hardly non-partisan.

The ad by MoveOn was wrong to call his patriotism into question.

Right-wingers have only themselves to blame because it is they who have decided that calling fellow Americans "traitors" is something that is acceptable.
They have been sliming the military careers of political opponents for some time now.

Let's see, to date the list includes:

* John Kerry

* Wes Clark

* Max Cleland

* John McCain

* Tammy Duckworth



Republicans really need to cut this crap out.

*

[scottinnj]

Congress officially condemning a) a political organization and b) a newspaper ad honestly bothers me.

Why? If the ad is offensive, then they should. I remember a lot of condemnation from the Congress over G. Gordon Liddy's remarks about "shooting federal agents in the knees" during a no-knock warrant exercise. He was making a political statement right? And he should have been condemned. You don't shoot cops during a warrant.

Neither do you put into question the statements of a man who hasn't even made them yet. Especially when the Senate so overwhelmingly supported his nomination.

Hear him out first, then debate the issues. Don't call someone a liar before they open their mouth. That's just a scumbag move.

[Tallman388]

If people are going to run on their military record then they open it up to more scrutiny than it would normally get. One of the things that helped Jimmy Carter was not playing up his military service. How many people knew he was a graduate of the Naval Academy?

[empulse]

Except if you read the Times today, and the Washington Post.. both have stories saying he lied. He did. He did what his commander an chief told him to do. He lied. Iraq will never be a success story. Now you could argue "Well he serves at the presidents leisure" true. But the asshat in the oval office serves at our leisure. I guess in theory. 70+% think we should get the fuck out and he doesn't listen, so really thats just a "looks good on paper kind of thing".

[Yerdaddy]

Nah. What I think this shows is that Petraeus is widely viewed in Washington as an honest man doing a difficult (if not impossible) job by folks on both sides of the aisle. He has overwhelming bi-partisan support, which was why he was nominated in the first place.

He was confirmed with an 81-0 vote by the Senate.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus)
The only extremist here is Moveon.org. But what else is new.
Petraeus' past cheerleading for the Bush administration shows he is hardly non-partisan.

The ad by MoveOn was wrong to call his patriotism into question.

Right-wingers have only themselves to blame because it is they who have decided that calling fellow Americans "traitors" is something that is acceptable.
They have been sliming the military careers of political opponents for some time now.

Let's see, to date the list includes:

* John Kerry

* Wes Clark

* Max Cleland

* John McCain

* Tammy Duckworth



Republicans really need to cut this crap out.

*

Exactly. There's a double standard in Washington where liberal extremist rhetoric gets condemned by Democrats but conservative extremism must be condemned. For seven years I've had to listen to the President accuse the Democrats, and by default me, of treason with a constant stream of accusations like:


When we oppose torture we "don't want Amurrica to interrogate terrorists".
When we oppose unlimited detaining of suspects in Guantanamo with no due process and when many had been released for lack of evidence or because they were mistakenly arrested after months or years of captivity and after we know Guantanamo is one of the most damaging issues to our credibility in the world - the President says ""we want to let terrorists go free.
When we oppose warrentless wiretapping we "dont want to listen to terrorists' conversations."
When we opposed the war in Iraq we were supporting Saddam, hated America, "forgot" 9-11, etc.
When we criticized the war's handling we hated the troops, wanted them to have poor morale, wanted us to lose the war, etc.
When we pointed out the lack of troops compared to standard military doctrine, lack of securing Iraq's supposed WMD sites and weapons caches that would be (and now have been) used to killed our soldiers, the lack of armored Hum-Vees, body armor, and MRAP IED-resistant vehicles, and the pathetic care wounded soldiers were getting at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities we got excuses and fucking cricket noises from the President and the right.


But when some liberal groups says bad things about a general who probably gives two shits about what's said about him you're like fucking Muslims running buck wild about some Muhammad cartoons in a trivial newspaper in a trivial country.

The right cares about nothing except maintaining political power and hating liberals. Terrorism and America are secondary issues. It's our extremist ideology and the Democrats are pussies for not confronting it.

[Thrice]

Exactly. There's a double standard in Washington where liberal extremist rhetoric gets condemned by Democrats but conservative extremism must be condemned. For seven years I've had to listen to the President accuse the Democrats, and by default me, of treason with a constant stream of accusations like:


When we oppose torture we "don't want Amurrica to interrogate terrorists".
When we oppose unlimited detaining of suspects in Guantanamo with no due process and when many had been released for lack of evidence or because they were mistakenly arrested after months or years of captivity and after we know Guantanamo is one of the most damaging issues to our credibility in the world - the President says ""we want to let terrorists go free.
When we oppose warrentless wiretapping we "dont want to listen to terrorists' conversations."
When we opposed the war in Iraq we were supporting Saddam, hated America, "forgot" 9-11, etc.
When we criticized the war's handling we hated the troops, wanted them to have poor morale, wanted us to lose the war, etc.
When we pointed out the lack of troops compared to standard military doctrine, lack of securing Iraq's supposed WMD sites and weapons caches that would be (and now have been) used to killed our soldiers, the lack of armored Hum-Vees, body armor, and MRAP IED-resistant vehicles, and the pathetic care wounded soldiers were getting at Walter Reed and other military medical facilities we got excuses and fucking cricket noises from the President and the right.


But when some liberal groups says bad things about a general who probably gives two shits about what's said about him you're like fucking Muslims running buck wild about some Muhammad cartoons in a trivial newspaper in a trivial country.

The right cares about nothing except maintaining political power and hating liberals. Terrorism and America are secondary issues. It's our extremist ideology and the Democrats are pussies for not confronting it.

Fuck Kucinich, I'm voting for you!

[spoon]

Nah. What I think this shows is that Petraeus is widely viewed in Washington as an honest man doing a difficult (if not impossible) job by folks on both sides of the aisle. He has overwhelming bi-partisan support, which was why he was nominated in the first place.

He was confirmed with an 81-0 vote by the Senate.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus)
The only extremist here is Moveon.org. But what else is new.

Oh come on BDC, he opened that he "didn't consult with the president on what he was to report" and then his words were exactly what Bush and Cheney claimed the day before. Bullshit, it's just too easy to see. They're all making/stealing money over there and the dems are a bunch of pussies. I don't care if they made fun of the pope, that ad was not bad. It was a play on words and a bad one! So fucking what. It's this righteous indignation that is going to kill our country. And I hate to say this, but there are assholes, gays and everything else in the military as well. My uncle, Doog and others here from the armed forces may be good people, but what are the odds that those up top with this white house aren't corrupt!? I doubt he's that bad, but he is staying in line (can I blame him that much the way this group deals with dissent?). Free press is free press, no matter how much you dislike it and the government shouldn't be saying shit about it. Where was the outrage when the press was USED to out a CIA operative? The right didn't care. But the dems falling in line IS a huge fucking eye opener to me. I can't fucking stand it! Yet I could only imagine what it would be like if they still had outright power. They have to deal, make deals with the dems now.

[spoon]

Petraeus' past cheerleading for the Bush administration shows he is hardly non-partisan.

The ad by MoveOn was wrong to call his patriotism into question.

Right-wingers have only themselves to blame because it is they who have decided that calling fellow Americans "traitors" is something that is acceptable.
They have been sliming the military careers of political opponents for some time now.

Let's see, to date the list includes:

* John Kerry

* Wes Clark

* Max Cleland

* John McCain

* Tammy Duckworth



Republicans really need to cut this crap out.

*

Exactly

[sailor]

And I hate to say this, but there are assholes, gays and everything else in the military as well.

in the military, we don't have homosexuals. i don't know who told you that.

[A.J.]

But when some liberal groups says bad things about a general who probably gives two shits about what's said about him you're like fucking Muslims running buck wild about some Muhammad cartoons in a trivial newspaper in a trivial country.

I'm waiting for Pat Robertson's fatwa calling for the ad creator's death.

[foodcourtdruide]

This is the same false outrage that was being shown in the Sharpton/Imus debacle.

[SinA]

Why? If the ad is offensive, then they should. I remember a lot of condemnation from the Congress over G. Gordon Liddy's remarks about "shooting federal agents in the knees" during a no-knock warrant exercise. He was making a political statement right? And he should have been condemned. You don't shoot cops during a warrant.

Neither do you put into question the statements of a man who hasn't even made them yet. Especially when the Senate so overwhelmingly supported his nomination.

Hear him out first, then debate the issues. Don't call someone a liar before they open their mouth. That's just a scumbag move.

Why? Because it's an advertisment in a public media outlet. Because the 1st ammendment of the Constitution of the United States of America says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Granted, this condemnation isn't a law, but it's scary how the legislature (and the executive branch) has no issue meddling with personal rights and freedoms.

And for me at least, this couldn't be farther away from false outrage. I'm genuinely afraid of what's going on.

* and the immediate reaction from the right is to question a dissenter's patriotism/loyalty, as if it's wrong for anyone to question and request verification of what they're telling us.

[Jujubees2]

Oh please, that's because he played it safe. Governance by polls, not principals.


That is kind of the point of democracy isn't it???

Exactly. I always wonder if the politicians who say "I don't listen to polls" realize what they're saying. I know it may sound strange, but the politicians work for US. They should do what we want them to do, not what they fell like doing. If my boss asked me to do something and I didn't, I'd get my ass fired. It's time to do the same with these politicians.

[SinA]

Exactly. I always wonder if the politicians who say "I don't listen to polls" realize what they're saying. I know it may sound strange, but the politicians work for US. They should do what we want them to do, not what they fell like doing. If my boss asked me to do something and I didn't, I'd get my ass fired. It's time to do the same with these politicians.

Part of the problem is that there are two roles for the people we elect:

1: Representatives - where they speak and vote for us in the governing body, based on what we want.

2: Leaders - where they speak/vote for us based on what they think is best, even if it's not what we necessarily want.

[Crispy123]

Leaders - where they speak/vote for us based on what they think is best, even if it's not what we necessarily want.


Well there are several types of leaders as well.

Bill Clinton: Leaders who have the pulse of the people and can identify with them and try to improve the country for all citizens.

George Bush: Out of touch with reality, in love with power for the sake of power, and only allow those to speak who agree with your position.


But AJ's right GWB has principles and private conversations with god, so you got what you wanted...

[Jujubees2]

Well there are several types of leaders as well.

Bill Clinton: Leaders who have the pulse of the people and can identify with them and try to improve the country for all citizens.

George Bush: Out of touch with reality, in love with power for the sake of power, and only allow those to speak who agree with your position.


But AJ's right GWB has principles and private conversations with god, so you got what you wanted...

Amen

[A.J.]

Well there are several types of leaders as well.

Bill Clinton: Leaders who have the pulse of the people and can identify with them and try to improve the country for all citizens.

George Bush: Out of touch with reality, in love with power for the sake of power, and only allow those to speak who agree with your position.


But AJ's right GWB has principles and private conversations with god, so you got what you wanted...

Well, I was afraid that my comments would derail this thread into Clinton-Bush and I was right. That's my fault.

I will say that I'm not a fan of Dubya's private conversations with God either. I prefer that he'd get himself a "Spiritual Advisor" like Jesse Jackson was for Clinton during the Lewinsky Scandal. Talking to God is more fun in groups.

[Crispy123]

Well, I was afraid that my comments would derail this thread into Clinton-Bush and I was right. That's my fault.

I will say that I'm not a fan of Dubya's private conversations with God either. I prefer that he'd get himself a "Spiritual Advisor" like Jesse Jackson was for Clinton during the Lewinsky Scandal. Talking to God is more fun in groups.


:lol::lol::lol:

[high fly]

If people are going to run on their military record then they open it up to more scrutiny than it would normally get. One of the things that helped Jimmy Carter was not playing up his military service. How many people knew he was a graduate of the Naval Academy?


At the time it was widely known because of issues having to do with nuclear power.

Please don't equate "scrutiny" with out-and-out lying or trying to slime a person's military record for political gain.

You know how Bob Dole got his first Purple Heart?
He threw a hand grenade that hit a branch of a tree overhead and it bounced back near him. I disagree with a lot of what Dole has stood for politically but I would not club him for this, demand he give his medal back, or criticize him for accepting it.
To do so is beneath contempt.

Same with the sliming of John McCain, where Bush stood on the same stage as the guy who claimed McCain was a traitor who had been turned into a spy by the Soviets after they filmed him having sex with his North Vietnamese jailers.

Same with Not-So-Swift-Boat leader Roy Hoffman who wrote up one of John Kerry's medal recommendations and said he was "A shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy," but later, when politics were on the line, completely contradicted himself.

The same goes for those who called David Shoup a "traitor" for opposing the Vietnam War. Don't know who David Shoup was? Read up on the battle for Tarawa and how he came to wear that pretty blue ribbon with the little white stars on it.

The MoveOn.org ad is dispicable in calling Petraeus "Betray Us" or even hinting that he is a traitor.
The ad had merit in other parts, but this is disgusting and has to stop.

[Snacks]

At the time it was widely known because of issues having to do with nuclear power.

Please don't equate "scrutiny" with out-and-out lying or trying to slime a person's military record for political gain.

You know how Bob Dole got his first Purple Heart?
He threw a hand grenade that hit a branch of a tree overhead and it bounced back near him. I disagree with a lot of what Dole has stood for politically but I would not club him for this, demand he give his medal back, or criticize him for accepting it.
To do so is beneath contempt.

Same with the sliming of John McCain, where Bush stood on the same stage as the guy who claimed McCain was a traitor who had been turned into a spy by the Soviets after they filmed him having sex with his North Vietnamese jailers.

Same with Not-So-Swift-Boat leader Roy Hoffman who wrote up one of John Kerry's medal recommendations and said he was "A shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy," but later, when politics were on the line, completely contradicted himself.

The same goes for those who called David Shoup a "traitor" for opposing the Vietnam War. Don't know who David Shoup was? Read up on the battle for Tarawa and how he came to wear that pretty blue ribbon with the little white stars on it.

The MoveOn.org ad is dispicable in calling Petraeus "Betray Us" or even hinting that he is a traitor.
The ad had merit in other parts, but this is disgusting and has to stop.

Im guessing what you are saying is that Republicans are the biggest hypocrite assholes? That they have been doing this same shit for years and now they have a problem only because its against one of their own and that this is more of a way to make the dems look like they dont support our troops only for political gain?

[Tallman388]

At the time it was widely known because of issues having to do with nuclear power.

Please don't equate "scrutiny" with out-and-out lying or trying to slime a person's military record for political gain.

You know how Bob Dole got his first Purple Heart?
He threw a hand grenade that hit a branch of a tree overhead and it bounced back near him. I disagree with a lot of what Dole has stood for politically but I would not club him for this, demand he give his medal back, or criticize him for accepting it.
To do so is beneath contempt.

Same with the sliming of John McCain, where Bush stood on the same stage as the guy who claimed McCain was a traitor who had been turned into a spy by the Soviets after they filmed him having sex with his North Vietnamese jailers.

Same with Not-So-Swift-Boat leader Roy Hoffman who wrote up one of John Kerry's medal recommendations and said he was "A shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy," but later, when politics were on the line, completely contradicted himself.

The same goes for those who called David Shoup a "traitor" for opposing the Vietnam War. Don't know who David Shoup was? Read up on the battle for Tarawa and how he came to wear that pretty blue ribbon with the little white stars on it.

The MoveOn.org ad is dispicable in calling Petraeus "Betray Us" or even hinting that he is a traitor.
The ad had merit in other parts, but this is disgusting and has to stop.

The point is: How does military service translate into legislative ability? It doesn't. Trying to slime somebody's military career is indeed despicable. However, it's part of the process now.
You have rabid left wing types attacking GOP veterans as being part of the war machine and rabid right wing types attacking anti-war liberals for being unpatriotic, etc. At some point there'll be a candidate who comes along and unites the better part of both sides for the good of the country rather than the good of their party. Of course I'll probably be dead by then.

[Yerdaddy]

The point is: How does military service translate into legislative ability? It doesn't. Trying to slime somebody's military career is indeed despicable. However, it's part of the process now.
You have rabid left wing types attacking GOP veterans as being part of the war machine and rabid right wing types attacking anti-war liberals for being unpatriotic, etc.

You forgot that on one side you've got a private political organization that really nobody pays attention to except the right who uses them as a straw man to attack the Dems and the left in general. And on the other side you've got THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, most of the White House staff and half the cabinet and their press officers and about half of the elected members of Congress from that party. Oh, and an entire right-wing media industry.

Ain't the same fucking thing. Ain't even the same fucking sport. And you let them get away with slandering the military service of almost every Democratic veteran by pretending that it's the same coming from the other side. It ain't. Step out of the herd and show some principle. Please.