Beginning in the Senate, we have senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell in a kind of role reversal with the passage of the “supposedly watered down” LIEberman-Kyl amendment; expressing the sense of the Senate regarding Iran.
Ultimately the amendment, amongst other things, states, ”…that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224…”
OK, so tell me class, between Iran and the United States, which country has most recently invaded any country bordering Iran? Between Iran and the United States, whose government actions have led directly or indirectly to the deaths of some 1,000,000 people due to military action? Between Iran and the United States, which country is responsible for displacing some 2,000,000 people from their own country? I’ll give you a hint – it isn’t Iran. Oh yeah, before you start telling me about “nuclear threat” – that would be the US too. We got-em; they don’t.
As for the “role reversal” in this vote; Patty Murray votes “Aye” with Maria Cantwell voting “No.” Considering that it wasn’t that long ago that many of us were concerned about anti-Iranian legislation that Cantwell was co-sponsoring with then-senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), I am pleasantly surprised to find Sen. Cantwell backing away from the type of inflammatory rhetoric that led us into Iraq. As for Patty Murray, she has long been afforded her due respect for her “No” vote on the “Iraq War Resolution.” So I am genuinely confused by this one.
On to the US House where, not to be outdone by their cousins in the Senate, they have passed their own version of the “MoveOn SlapDown.” By a vote of 341-79, the House adopted similar language to the Senate in extolling the many virtues of Gen. David Petraeus and condemning by name MoveOn.org for placing an (as yet untouched for its factual validity) ad in the New York Times asking the question: “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” And how did the members of our House Democratic Delegation come down on this matter? Voting to condemn MoveOn.org – Baird, Dicks, Larsen, and Smith. Voting No – McDermott and Inslee.
So to be clear, according to Reps. Baird, Dicks, Larsen, and Smith an anti-war organization who pays for commercial advertising to question the integrity OF THE INFORMATION the administration’s point man will be offering to Congress and the American people should be condemned even though none of the background information they provided in their ad has been disputed. Yet, one of their colleagues in the House, Republican Leader John Boehner may refer to the blood of American troops as, “…a small price…” and he is met with almost total silence. Well if this is part of their strategy to boost the poll numbers of Congress and help increase their Democratic majority next year I gotta tell ya, it’s not instilling me with a lot of confidence.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
10 comments:
They questioned the character of Patraeus. Had they solely questioned the information, the reaction would not be so universally condemned. A subtle difference but there it is.
Chantel,
Here is the content of the ad:
"GENERAL PETRAEUS OR
GENERAL BETRAY US?
Paid for by Moveon.org Political Action, political.moveon.org, not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there
was “tangible progress” in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.” And last week Petraeus, the architect
of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, “We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do
everything we can to build on that progress.”
Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General
claims a reduction in violence. That’s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre
formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don’t count. The Washington Post reported
that assassinations only count if you’re shot in the back of the head — not the front. According to the Associated
Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any
other summer we’ve been there. We’ll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won’t hear that
those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.
Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious
civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won’t hear what Americans are
desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops
will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.
Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us."
If using the man's own words and statements and comparing his "facts" to other "facts" is attacking his character then we really have a serious problem in this country. No wonder it is becoming easier and easier for the American people to become sheeple to be led around by Bush and his cronies....and, if the recent votes in the Senate and the House are any indication, apparently many Democrats are falling for that same line.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts.
I just don't see how that's not an attack on character. *shrug*
I would say it is an attack on the reality of his claims Chantel.
Chantel,
OMG! A comment fit for Rush Limbaugh.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Um, Ok. Limbaugh is pondscum.
Seriously, do you really think that attacking a commander in the field is something the Democratic party needs to get behind? Really? That's how we're going to turn red states blue? Honestly?
Come on. MoveOn did not help the party with that ad. It's all about winning elections, a goal some seem to wish to avoid at all costs.
Chantel, He was not in the field. Do you know the history of this guy? He has been a cheer leader for this war ever since the damn thing was started. If the Democratic leadership does not start standing up to these maggots they are not going to be winning anything except standing in an unemployment line.
Please end the Blue Dog win win win stuff. It's starting to get boring. We need to win with folks who are going to represent the base and not spew this idiotic rhetoric. With strong candidates who don't keep Bs'ing the voter and are honest with them is whats going to win hearts and minds. NOT this cowardly posturing and rhetoric that some of these insider Dems are shoveling.
Honestly Chantel I hope you get involved with the state party more because when we meet there I will be looking for blue dogs to debate and educate.
TTFN
Ozy, people can disagree with you without being in need of an education. Perhaps it is you who are in need of schooling?
Here's something I would love to debate with you at an event sometime:
How is it that a vote for the non-binding resolution against the surge was an act of cowardice because it was a meaningless gesture, but a vote for the non-binding resolution against the MoveOn advertisement was akin to burning the constitution? I'm confused. Do non-binding resolution votes matter or don't they? You can't have it both ways.
I will now eagerly await your spin. :)
Spin? LOL
Oh please educate me Chantel. But let's keep it easy and understandable.
I think non-binding resolutions are a waste of congressional time! No matter what they are for. We have real problems and life and death situations around the world which the USA is involved in and has the ability to make positive changes.
I answered your question I hope. To the point without any of what you accuse me of using spppppin.
What you are saying about people and education I disagree with. I don't know it all. Do you know it all Chantel?
I would like to have EDUCATED opinions on a given subject. The degree of that education will vary. Right or wrong I do my best to not talk out of my rear end.
I am not saying you practice this at all but many do!
I am saying that you seem to support every single talking point, which the Democratic Party chucks out to us.
I can certainly understand why you do from what I gather about your ideology. I don’t subscribe too much of what you do.
I invite the educational process to continue.
My I respectfully request a couple of points of ethics perhaps.
#1 I will try to back up my mouth with as many facts as possible.
#2 If you would like to spin feel free but we shall call it what it is spin, BS talking points et al.
#3 Anyone can participate in the debate discussion argument schooling or whatever you would like to refer to it as.
#4 personal attacks within reason are ok as long as they don’t get ridiculous.
(I just put this in because you have offended me and I think you didn’t realize it but I think you should have. I in turn have said exactly what I wanted to say to you and may have done the same to you.) I don’t think we need to name call in the sense of gross and nasty metaphors) not counting you are full of shit because I think you are on many of your points as you may feel about mine.
#5 Finish the debate on the subject and not cop-out when you figure out you or the other party is wrong or right.
Most important admit when we are wrong and except the admission. Then move on to the next point.
Please add what ever you wish to my suggestions and I will try to honor these principles. If you don’t want to participate then fine. We can just ignore each other.
The thinking left would like to hear what the bluedog Democrats are spewing =)
If my answer to your question is complete I would like my turn to ask you the next question.
Please don’t press your non-binding issue too much. It’s non-binding . There is real work to do out there. Don’t you agree?
I think you've set forth great rules and I will do my best to abide. Earlier Chad said he suspected me of trolling so I think allowing a LeftShue contributor to set guidelines is fair.
Thank you for agreeing with my point about non-binding resolutions. I just didn't understand how one such vote could be dismissed as meaningless while the other is condemned as an abuse of power.
No, I don't know everything. And - truth be told - in a perfect world I would likely agree with most of what you and Chad say. But it isn't a perfect world. I believe that a Rolls Royce is a finer automobile than a Dodge Caravan, but I drive the Caravan.
That's the problem I have with the far left. No compromise, no nod to reality, just a complete demand that every Democrat hue to the same line. I truly don't understand why winning is less important than 'standing on principle' when forsaking winning leads to being shut out completely.
Post a Comment