The Vote is Cheap...Get rid of the Cash.

Congressmen Giffords and Mitchell have voted to condemn the now imfamous Move.On ad attacking General Petraeus.  That's a classic Washington move; keep the money but condemn the contributor.   Giffords accepted at least $5,000 in cash from Move.On and Mitchell received over $146,000 in independent expenditures from the organization.

Come on guys, you were for Move.On before you were against them.  Now you can tell the Net Roots that you accepted their support and you can tell your District that you voted to condemn them.  You can only have it both ways for so long.  It's time to give the Move.On money to your favorite local charity and say that you will no longer accept Move.On's money.

(In the much more obscure Committee vote, Giffords voted not to allow the condemnation motion to go to the floor of the House.  Then she voted for it when it reached the floor.  So, I guess, she was for Move.on twice before she was against them.)

BTW, the New York Times now admits that the Petreaus ad violated its own advertising standards.  The paper does not accept advertisements that contain personal attacks on individual people.  Meanwhile the paper is finally conceding that Move.On was charged half the price that it should have paid. 

The image on the left is the original ad over overlaid with a response from Congressman John Shadegg.

Comments

[Timothy]

Looks like Greg read Peggy Noonan's column today.

[The Klute]

And I have a different perspective on that. If the enemies of this country see dissent as a weakness, they're more than welcome to put that assertation to the test - and they'll fall by the wayside like the Nazis, the Soviets, who believed we were weak. But we've got to be the example for the rest of the world, we've got to show that our differences make us strong.

If they choose to make a misinterpreation of these differences, honestly, that's the enemy's problem. To the Taliban, they believe flying kites and listening to recorded music is a sign of weakness. It reminds me of that video tape they found of Osama and Zawahiri having dinner after 9/11, how they said Americans must have believed the attacks were a "coup". I mean, who the hell thought that? No one.

We have to be an example to the people who are caught in the middle, to the kid who might not want to grow up under facism or totalitarianism. In this context, when I see that ad, I hear that kid asking: "I can criticize the general without being shot? There is a place this can happen?" (that should be said in a stereotypical 3rd world accent to fully tug at the heartstrings).

And let's be honest, do we really think they're getting the New York Times in Waziristan or a hole in Baqouba? If everyone hadn't lost their collective minds over this and if the politicans hadn't used it as a wedge to further drive apart everyone, it would have come and went.

Although I could be wrong. Maybe Osama reads the New York Times and does the Jumble after his morning salat and was feeling *really* good when he saw the ad.

And just to clarify, the line didn't go dead to any kind of secret police action - it went dead when a NATO bomb hit something. It was hard for me to reconcile the fact that we were dropping bombs on some of the wrong people for the right reasons.

[123@gmail.com]

This is all awesome. I can't wait to see all these congressional Republican who have benefited enormously from 20 years of the Rush Limbaugh Show, vote for a resolution condeming the twice-divorced former oxycontin addict for calling soldiers who criticize the war "phony soldiers."

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13051.html

[vet66]

123 Gmail;

Suggest you read the entire statement and not read sources that cherry-pick words that suit their agenda. The "phony soldier" context pertained to the propensity of some in the media to manufacture stories that are false but should be true.

As for Tim, people die, including our soldiers, as the Takfiris around the world are re-energized by unfettered dissent, with no accompanying support, blares forth.

If causing the deaths of soldiers and innocents is an acceptable price to pay for said dissent, the blood is on your hands.

[vet66]

Correction, the second part of the post was aimed at Klute not Tim.

[The Klute]

vet66,

Are you really saying there's no vocal support for the war in America? So I guess Gathering of Eagles, Move America Forward, Gold Star Families, every Republican presidential candidate (with the exception of Ron Paul), Fox News, etc. is just a fever dream I've been having for the last 5 years? Or are they just that ineffectual?

And I'm sorry, the blood is on the hands of the generals and civilian leadership who failed to plan to for a protracted insurgency and the terrorists and isurgents themselves.

That's the thing I don't get about people with your mindset. You believe we liberals are so ineffectual at doing anything because we're doing nothing but talking about Trotsky while taking hits of our bong, while at the time same time, we're part of diabolical plan that controls America through op-ed ads and marching through then streets to a 4-4 beat.

Republicans have had control of the government for the last 6 years. Let's repeat that: REPUBLICANS HAVE HAD CONTROL OF ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FROM 2001-2007. You've got control of the most watched cable news channel (or so they bray all the time). You control talk radio. You had the power. And what did you do with it?

Not our fault, vet66. Go bitch to Hastert, to Bush, to Lott, to all your little munchkins. But I know, it's easier to blame an op-ed piece than shining the light of introspection on our leaders failed us.

[The Klute]

And you know, the price for dissent has always been paid in blood. From Nathan Hale to Rafic Hariri.

[123@gmail.com]

Vet66,

That's actually not true. The transcript that Rush Limbaugh put up on his website was redacted so it made it seem as if he was saying what you say he was saying.

But all you need to do is visit the link where the full conversation from beginning to end is availabe in audio and transcript form.

Also, Bill Clinton puts everything in context for you:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/clinton_on_moveon.php

[vet66]

123;

You are correct sir! It appears that Limbaugh tried to weasel his way out of his statement. Inexcusable. That is not good for his credibility.

I do believe he supports the troops and disparages the those troops who dis the war. That doesn't do his credibility much good.

Klute, I belong to several organizations that support the military and their families. Don't go there.

Speaking of credibility, the lefty media has disgraced itself time and again printing phony stories from questionable sources using photoshop to dramatize actual events. Doesn't excuse Limbaugh's actions one bit. Two wrongs don't make a right. There are many newspapers in the west that print with an ideological bias.

[The Klute]

"Klute, I belong to several organizations that support the military and their families. Don't go there."

Fine. So what was the point of this statement?:

"people die, including our soldiers, as the Takfiris around the world are re-energized by unfettered dissent, with no accompanying support, blares forth."

Either there is dissent with accompanying support, or there isn't. Either you are a member of a vocal organization that supports the war, or you're not.

You can't have it both ways, vet66.

[vet66]

123;

I did some double checking and guess what I came up with? Nothing redacted but I posit that the name Jesse Mcbeth (Phony soldier) and MediaMatters (Probably funded by Soros.)

I believe we were both duped and the far left is in attack mode. The tried to beef O-Reilly on a rascism charge and failed. They then went after Limbaugh. There is a pattern of deception here and I don't believe it was Limbaugh.

Check your sources and try to come up with something other than Iglesias and Moveon. Limbaugh should be on O'Reilly tomorrow night. We shall see!

[123@gmail.com]

Vet66,

I'd be happy to visit links you have that show that Limbaugh did not redact the transcript. I've listened to the full segment and also read the full transcript. Limbaugh was clearly calling soldiers who spoke out against the war "phony soldiers."

[Ann]

The context of the statement was referencing Jesse Macbeth and those like him, he is a phony soldier. There have been many others who would play to the hearts of Americans for their own profit. This is an abomination and should not be supported even if by an apathetic insignificance.

[vet66]

Klute;

I enjoy our discussions. Regarding "Can't have it both ways" there is a third way. Both sides have their bias. The lefties seem to be taking their bias to new highs by going on the attack against conservatives. Arguably the lefites have restricted debate and free speech if it doesn't follow their party line. The Petraeus debacle failed spectacularly and damage control is in full force.
that is why the attacks on conservative radio, including Savage whom I believe is over-the-top, and recurring talk about the Fairness Doctrine.

All this goes with talk about supporting the troops but not supporting the cause. Translation: troops are dying and being injured for Bush's War, read "Needlessly."

Point Being; a non-united front against Takfiris/fundamentalist muslims inspires the mujahadeen, etc., to reenergize and kill more soldiers and civilians.

[123@gmail.com]

The context of the statement was referencing Jesse Macbeth and those like him, he is a phony soldier. There have been many others who would play to the hearts of Americans for their own profit. This is an abomination and should not be supported even if by an apathetic insignificance.

That's not true. Read the transcript and listen to the tape. Of course, Limbaugh has been on the radio for the last few days claiming that he was referring to Jesse MacBeth, but that's not what he said when he made the comments as the tape and transcript show.

[123@gmail.com]

I should add that Limbaugh has a history of impugning the integrity of soldiers who disagree with him politically. It wasn't just his comment last week attacking unnamed soldiers who are critical of the war as "phony soldiers." In 2005, Limbaugh attacked Paul Hackett, a marine who served in Fallujah and Ramadi, as a "staff puke," who went to Iraq "to pad [his] resume," and is "a liberal hiding behind a military uniform." Listen:

Audio and Video here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/28/audio-limbaugh-calls-ira_n_66333.html

I personally found the MoveOn ad distasteful, and didn't think Petraeus, as much as he's carrying out Bush's policy, deserved to be called, essentially, a traitor.

I did think that while the headline "Betray-Us" was disrespectful, that the text of the ad was otherwise pretty accurate.

I also don't get all bent out of shape when partisans like MoveOn or Rush Limbaugh attack people in the military, given that I regard people in the military as grown ups who can kind of take a verbal thrashing without paying it much mind.

[vet66]

123;

Therein lies the difference between your position and mine. I don't believe the motives of the lefties is benign at all. It is a noxious drip-drip of poison that infects and stifles debate. From the anti-military movies from Hollywood and celebrated in Cannes, to media hype that endangers our troops and cause by leaking secrets, to a CIA that is long on process and short on strategy, to lefty politicians who kill troops in their quest for political power.

That is the difference between us.

[The Klute]

"All this goes with talk about supporting the troops but not supporting the cause. Translation: troops are dying and being injured for Bush's War, read 'Needlessly.'"

And that's just it. I *don't* believe they are fighting and dying without a purpose, but I do believe they are dying needlessly. Bringing Osama and Zawhiri to justice and taking down Al Quida could have been accomplished without invading Iraq.

If we had stayed focused on Afhghanistan, we would have brought Osama and Zawhiri to justice, created a bulwark against militant Islam, and created a launching point for the US should things have gotten out of hand in other Middle Eastern areas.

Theocratic Iran would have had the built in buffer of a SECULAR Iraq to keep things in line.

As it is, Osama and Zawhiri have escaped, Iran's stronger than ever, Iraq went from being a secular Arab country to one teetering on the bring of either anarchy or theocracy, Karzai is begging Mullah Omar and the Taliban to come to the table to keep Afghanistan together... It's been a geo-political disaster of epic proportions.

To those who say "Well, you're a hypocritcal liberal because you don't want Iraq to be free", I say the people of the country themselves want to be free. Maybe I'm just prejudicial against countries waiting for other people to come free them. My family fought as partisans against the Nazis and as dissidents against the Soviets in Czechoslovakia - they taught me freedom comes within, not from without.

We should have taken the route the Mossad took after Black September in '72 - hunting down anyone who even thought about 9/11 and killing them.

"Point Being; a non-united front against Takfiris/fundamentalist muslims inspires the mujahadeen, etc., to reenergize and kill more soldiers and civilians."

Again, like I said to Ann, kite-flying and Cosmopolitan magazine re-energize the mujahadeen. I'm not going to live my life worrying about what I write on my blog or perform on the stage are going to do to energize the enemies of the United States, because there's so many other things (Blackwater, the Mahmoudiya massacre, etc.) that are going to energize them more than me calling George W. Bush an incompetant loser would ever do.

[The Klute]

And I enjoy them too. Keeps my rhetorical skills sharp. :)

[vet66]

I believe the Blackwater episode is a red herring also. Given that this group has a stellar record of protecting 'High value' types in the U.S. and abroad, this entire episode is suspect. One must expect that Blackwater folks will simply go to work for another protection agency doing the same work. Nothing will change.

I suggest that you suspend your will disbelief and look at all these examples in light of the 2008 election. We shall see if the dems are imploding under the weight of their own vacuous bias.

Follow the money.

Cudos to Ann. She writes well and is a sharp thinker also. Nice to have written conversation without resorting to ad hominem attacks and a revulsion for facts.

Keep it up.