It’s about time:

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Thursday overwhelmingly passed a measure condemning for a newspaper ad it ran last week attacking Gen. David Petraeus. The move came as President Bush accused Democrats of cowering to the liberal political action group.

The measure passed in a 72-25 vote, with none of the Democratic presidential candidates supporting it. Sponsored by Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, never one to shy away from forcing Democrats to go on record on politically sticky issues, the amendment to the defense authorization bill did win the backing of 23 Democrats.

It’s the AMERICAN thing to do.

Now this is rich:

“Who would have ever expected anybody to go after a general in the field at a time of war, launch a smear campaign against a man we’ve entrusted with our mission in Iraq?” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell asked on the Senate floor. “Any group that does this sort of thing ought to be condemned. Let’s take sides. General Petraeus or Which one are we going to believe? Which one are we going to condemn?”

In response, MoveOn officials said the group was going to buy TV ad time to attack McConnell, R-Ky., and other senators who voted against a measure offered a day earlier by Democratic Sen. Jim Webb to require troops to have equal down time at home as they have deployed in war zones. The measure failed.

Do I detect a hint of childish anger and revenge in

The stupidity continues:

“No wonder public approval of Congress is tanking. They’re so out of touch with reality that they can find time to condemn an ad but they can’t do what most Americans want — vote to end this war,” said Eli Pariser, executive director of Political Action.

Ya don’t say. Ever notice, that as liberal supporters you just turned on your own party affiliates who happen to be the controlling party of Congress? I wonder who really is out of touch with reality Mr. Pariser ??

This guy is most definitely a few fries short of a happy meal.

Update by Nate

Those who voted against supporting Petraeus of the 2008 candidates include the following:

Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd

Joe Biden and Barack Obama did not vote.

Mitt Romney was none too pleased:

Boston, MA – Today, Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the Senate’s vote to condemn the ad:

“Hillary Clinton had a choice. She could stand with our troop commander in Iraq, or she could stand with the libelous left wing of her party. She chose the latter. The idea that she would be a credible commander-in-chief of our armed forces requires the willing suspension of disbelief.”

I concur with Mitt.

  • Hi,

    This General is an honorable man who has dedicated his life to OUR country and has the Bronze Star Medal for Valor


    Gen. David H. Petraeus
    Commanding General ~~ Multi-National Force – Iraq

    General David H. Petraeus assumed command of the Multi-National Force-Iraq on February 10th, 2007, following his assignment as the Commanding General, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and Fort Leavenworth. Prior to assuming command at Ft. Leavenworth, he was the first commander of the Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq, which he led from June 2004 to September 2005, and the NATO Training Mission- Iraq, which he commanded from October 2004 to September 2005.

    That deployment to Iraq followed his command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), during which he led the “Screaming Eagles” in combat throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom. His command of the 101st followed a year deployed on Operation Joint Forge in Bosnia, where he was the Assistant Chief of Staff for Operations of the NATO Stabilization Force and the Deputy Commander of the US Joint Interagency Counter-Terrorism Task Force-Bosnia. Prior to his tour in Bosnia, he spent two years at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, serving first as the Assistant Division Commander for Operations of the 82nd Airborne Division and then as the Chief of Staff of XVIII Airborne Corps.

    General Petraeus was commissioned in the Infantry upon graduation from the United States Military Academy in 1974. He has held leadership positions in airborne, mechanized, and air assault infantry units in Europe and the United States, including command of a battalion in the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) and a brigade in the 82nd Airborne Division. In addition, he has held a number of staff assignments: Aide to the Chief of Staff of the Army; battalion, brigade, and division operations officer; Military Assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander – Europe; Chief of Operations of the United Nations Force in Haiti; and Executive Assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    General Petraeus was the General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Class of 1983. He subsequently earned MPA and Ph.D. degrees in international relations from Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, and later served as an Assistant Professor of International Relations at the US Military Academy. He also completed a fellowship at Georgetown University.

    Awards and decorations earned by General Petraeus include the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Distinguished Service Medal, two awards of the Defense Superior Service Medal, four awards of the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and the Gold Award of the Iraqi Order of the Date Palm.

    He is a Master Parachutist and is Air Assault and Ranger qualified. He has also earned the Combat Action Badge and French, British, and German Jump Wings.

    In 2005 he was recognized by the U.S. News and World Report as one of America’s 25 Best Leaders.

    LIAR…I do not think so.

    General David Betray Us

  • The Angry American
  • Mike

    Oh yeah, condemning free speech…the *American* thing to do. Generals, after all, are uncorrupted by political appointments…it’s not like the Bush Administration fired every other general until they found one that blindly echoed their own political dogma in spite of the facts. Oh wait.

    However, I think your subtly nuanced commentary of “as liberal supporters you just turned on your own party affiliates” misses an important point – it fails to recognize the growing split between liberals and Democrats.

    The reason Congressional approval ratings are currently so low is not because there’s some massive pro-war conservative backlash from all those sweaty Nascar dads. Whichever party is currently in power of Congress naturally gets low approval ratings from those of opposing ideologies, keeping thse ratings hovering in the mid-40s.

    Rather, the unique situation now is that the Democratically-controlled Congress is getting low approval ratings from their own liberal base in addition to the aforementioned monster-truck-drivin’ conservatives. The liberals issued a mandate in the 2006 election to end the war, which in spite of ample lip-service is precisely what they have not done.

    Democrats are trying to occupy some disturbing middle ground; they attempt to please their base while still not daring to rail against the jingoistic sentiment of being “soft on terror”, and end up pleasing no one in the end.

  • The Angry American

    I love how you stereo type conservatives while defending the split between liberals and Democrats. It conveys a mislead mindset and nast attitude towards your only fellow countrymen simply because you don’t agree with thier political vision or beliefs and the fact of the matter is, you have no idea what the belief is of individual republican supporters or for that matter Democrat party supporters……anyhow, no the Democrats have not simply tried to maintain disturbing middle ground….they’ve tried to do anything but be an effective governing body as they have the majority.

    Simply up and leaving the war isn’t the answer. The problem lies herein. While withdrawl at some point is obviously a must, things aren’t so out of control or vice versa in control, that it’s feasible at this point. To simply leave whether you choose to agree or disagree with why we are there or how we got there etc is rediculous. You would just pull out and have the chaos worsen even moreso than it already is.

    As far as the statement made by, to make a statement that free speach was condemned is assinine. They were condemned for making a hate filled slanderous filled commentary about an individual who did not warrant that, and lest I remind you slander is still illegal in this country. They should have been charged with it, however due to the political climate, that won’t happen. If you think the General was corrupted, then I refer you to his meritorious record, and his speech in which he announced no one had been given a copy of his report prior to his appearance in Iraq, therefor it wasn’t subject to scrutiny by any political party to be persuaded in any manner.

    It would seem to me people such as yourself are filled with too much hatred and propoganda to see straight. You think everybody is bought off or corrupted and God forbid anyone should actually be a decent person. We all know of the corruption in politics, but ya know not everybody you disagree with is corrupted. People do have minds of thier own. We are capable of independant thought. The next time you sit down at your computer to rant and rave and complain of the performance given by the General, remind yourself that it was through the sacrifces made by the men and women of the military that has afforded you the rights to complain….freedom of speach and all.

  • Mike

    You have got be kidding me. You’re arguing that *I’m* not fairly representing the views of those who disagree with me politically? Every single time I check this site there’s yet another slanderous post about how dumb the left is…The worst part is that the whole site is guised under a false veil of nonpartisanship. I’m just trying to provide a little balance from the tidal wave of Republican propaganda passed off as unbiased blogging.

    As for the personal attacks, you argue that *I’m* the one filled with too much hatred to maintain a logical discourse. This is precisely the point I’m making – I disagree with your political views as a member of the left, so obviously I must be too angry to make a cogent point. Have you checked your username, lately?

    I’m not saying everyone in political appointments is bought off. Quite the contrary, if you read my post my point is that Bush had to go through a stream of generals before he could find one who would blindly tow the party line.

    Moreover, I truly don’t understand your meta-argument: that politicians can be derided with wanton bravado, but daring to question a military man is blasphemy and violating the sacred. This is riddled with logical inconsistencies, namely that this military man’s policies are the very same that are killing thousands of American men in uniform.