Blue Crab Boulevard

Senate Condemns MoveOn Ad

The Senate voted overwhelmingly to condemn the smear attack on General David Petraeus by MoveOn. The vote was 72-25. All of the votes against the measure were by Democrats (Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont joined them). Ed Morrisey points out the obvious here:

It's a particularly sad commentary on the Democratic Party that they cannot bring themselves to support the very commander they sent to lead American troops in battle by a unanimous vote. It's not a case of a few fringe politicians like Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer, either. The Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and his chief deputy, Dick Durbin, refused to condemn the smear on Petraeus' honor. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd, both of whom want to become Commander in Chief over the military, chose to endorse MoveOn's smear campaign against a man who has dedicated his life to defending this nation and serving presidents in a nonpartisan manner.

So, they voted for Petraeus before they voted against him. Very nice. The oath that Senators swear reads as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

I don't see any reference to swearing allegiance to MoveOn. But for all intents and purposes, that is really what 25 United States Senators did today.

Politics | Gaius Thursday, 20 September , 2007

By FedUp, Thursday, 20 September , 2007 @ 4:28 pm

All those who voted against and especially the wanna-be commander-in chiefs should be considered traitors! Apparently their oath means nothing to them! Wonder what kind of support Hilly would get from the military…
By reader_iam, Thursday, 20 September , 2007 @ 6:58 pm

Do we really want our Congress proposing, much less passing, resolutions having to do with political speech, however odious a specific instance may be? I mean, on principle–do we really want that?
By Gaius, Thursday, 20 September , 2007 @ 7:32 pm

You have a point, here’s the text of the amendment, however:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David II. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
By reader_iam, Thursday, 20 September , 2007 @ 7:45 pm

I’m well aware of the text. I just don’t think Congress ought to be in the business of taking official action, which is what it did, with regard to individual acts of political speech. It’s a dangerous precedent; it’s a “creeping.” And I’m saying that as one who is not a fan of MoveOn, to put it mildly.

And it also plays into the hands of those who believe that our government, it only it could, would like to deal with offensive political speech (whatever that might mean, now or in the future) or dissent, officially and formally, and that it’s laying the groundwork where it can.

Consequences can so often be unintended. A bear, that reality.
By Gaius, Thursday, 20 September , 2007 @ 7:54 pm

Again, a good point.
By James, Friday, 21 September , 2007 @ 2:19 am

Hmmmm. This event falls under the catagory of “Me thinks you protest too much.”

Actually, There’s nothing wrong with MoveOn running their ad.

One of the basic cornerstones of American society is the ranting and raving about EVERYTHING. The idea that anyone would be upset about the ad “being run” is showing how poor American citizens are in citizenship skills.

There are two things folks should be aware of:

One: CONTENT of ads. You agree or disagree, to some degree. Don’t like the position? Tell them why the info is wrong. Show proof. Found something really wrong? Try a lawsuit.

Two: The American Constitutional RIGHT to run an ad, regardless of what others think. Freedom of Speech type thing.

MoveOn has every RIGHT as Americans to run that ad.

Now if you want to complain about the position the ad took, that’s something else.

Bottom line about the content; only time will tell if the General was a hoodwinker.

As for the American Senate vote, it was another demonstration as to why Americans are seen as idiots around the world.

So…What’s more important Americans? Freedom of Speech, even if you hate what someone says; Or Politically Correct Content of Speech.

Choose. (You can’t have both in a “Free Society”.)

By the way. Americans really should read some of the newspaper articles from the 1800’s about their Generals and Presidents. That MoveOn ad was TAME compared to some articles from that time period. Even President Lincoln was vilified; While in office no less.
By syn, Friday, 21 September , 2007 @ 5:42 am

Many Americans are idiots because they don’t know or refuse to acknowledge that Moveon.org, as per their own words, has bought and now owns the Democrat Party.

As for Freedom of Speech, it would appear that the pie-throwers and the stage crashers are the ones demanding Politically Correct Content of Speech; their defense is that they are simply expressing their right to dissent.
By John Rheney, Friday, 21 September , 2007 @ 1:38 pm

I am particularly proud that all Southern Senators voted for this condemnation of the ad by Moving On!!!!
By ALFOR, Sunday, 23 September , 2007 @ 1:18 pm

Everyone seems to forget the swiftboat attacks by mastermind Karl Rove on John Kerry, who actually saw comabat in Vietnam VS G.W. who hid behind his fathers pants in the US and Chenny who got all kinds of exemptions from service.
By Gaius, Sunday, 23 September , 2007 @ 1:24 pm

Oh, really? Which part of Christmas in Cambodia was true then?

Oh, that’s right - it was a lie - seared, seared into the Senate record - by John Kerry.