Pelosi wouldn't have advised MoveOn.org to run ad

This is nothing but the typical disingenuous B.S. we get from Nancy Pelosi. She just lied with a smile.

It doesn't take 60 Senate votes to kill a funding bill. In fact, funding bills must start in the House of Representatives. If all House Democrats simply voted against any further funding when another request is made, the war would come to an end. They had two chances to do this already since they took over Congress – and they failed both times.

Yeah, sure she's hoping people don't understand the logistics of Congress all right. She's hoping that's true because, if so, it would mean that people are too ignorant to realize she just lied. Yeah, blame it on the Senate. And blame all colloidal dispersions on the dog, too.

Republican patriotic values:

Attacks on Petraeus - bad.

Attacks on Kerry & Cleland - good.

Peg says: Republicans win again!

We're STILL talking about a newspaper ad from over a week ago?!?!? Good grief!

I suppose the right wingnuts are still incensed that we would complain about that dork, Generalissimo Betrayus. Message to wingnuts: when you shill for a political party, it makes you fair game.

The Republican party is infested with unethical, immoral, liars, derelicts, and hypocrites. Eighteen of the 22 most corrupt members of Congress belong to that party.
MoveOn.org should run more adds exposing their lies and false values.

Why are the Republicans crying now? Back in the last election when the "swift boaters" were going after Kerry they were all for it. Now, that the shoe is on the other foot they cry like little girls. Turn-about fair play? I think so.

There are several major differences between Gen. Petraeus and John Kerry and Max Cleland. The biggest being is that the General is CURRENTLY in the military and leading the war effort in Iraq. Petraeus is representing the military TODAY. He IS IN a combat situation, with 160,000 American men and women right there with him.
The "attacks" on John Kerry came AFTER he was in the military, and those attacks largely were the result of his comments before Congress about the U.S. military raping and murdering innocent women and children.
In addition, the attacks on Max Cleland also were largely political, not about his service 30+ years ago.
Attacking Gen. Petreaus today is no different than the folks back in the 1960s and 1970s spitting on the returning Vietnam troops. Got it?

If our sniveling congresspeople of BOTH parties paid more attention to important issues than silly ADS we would all be much better off!

Republicans whine like little babies over a play on his name that was started by the troops months before MoveOn used it in their ad, but have refused to debate the substance on the facts in MoveOn's org.

And where was the Republican outrage when Rush Limbaugh called Senator Chuck Hagel "Senator Betrayus" on his radio show in January of this year? Non-existent. It's okay to attack Democratic senators by calling them traitors, but it's not okay to question the integrity of a general who admits to wanting to run for political office?

What have the Democrats done to get us to vote for them again? I don't see anything, other than condemning free speech and an ad they disagree with.

It only takes 41 votes to stop a spending bill and they have 51 so the only reason they're not stopping this war is because they're cowards.

"that dork, Generalissimo Betrayus"

People like you, saying things like that, have what has kept it in the news.

Those four words sum up what the left thinks of the military.

How can you be so ignorant not to see that?

John D., I think your post is right on in pointing out the distinctions involved with the Petraeus ad. I would only add that Pelosi bringing up the fact that other people have been attacked is a strawman to begin with. Bringing up past attacks neither justifies nor explains this one, nor does it offer any excuse for Democrats not to condemn the Petraeus ad.

zzpat, I would say the Democrats in Congress are more hypocritical than cowardly. Take Harry Reid for example. If you listen to his meaningless rhetoric, the war is lost and the surge was doomed from the start. However, if you look at his voting record, he voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq, has voted in favor of funding at every stage, and voted along with a unanimous Senate to confirm Petraeus, knowing full well of his surge plans. I recommend ignoring the meaningless rhetoric that comes from Reid and his cohorts and examine what matters - their voting record. If someone not familiar with Reid's hot air rhetoric examined only his voting record, they could only conclude that he has been in lockstep with the President from the beginning.

military spouse, the only ignorant one is you. I will not self censor because I might hurt your feelings. When the military screws up, (and it does a lot), it is not immune to criticism.

Because you appeared to have completely missed my (obvious) point, I'll restate it: When members of the military espouse preference for one political party over the other, they are fair game. Perhaps you've forgotten that idiot Genrl. Boykin who called our Iraqi adventure a 'holy war' whilst in uniform among other gaffs.

When idiots like Boykin and Betrayus continue to get a platform, it is our duty as citizens to point out their foibles.

BC, please provide proof that Limbaugh called Chuck Hagel, Sen. Betrayus.

Anyway, I know this is beyond your limited understanding, but calling a politician a name is much different than calling a member of the military a name, one who is still on active duty, one who is leading 160,000 men and women, and one who is putting his life on the line.

John D.

The spitting on Viet Nam soldiers coming home from the war is a myth.

weiner,

There is a difference in legitimate criticism and personal attacks. I have criticized both parties and the military leadership in other posts. I guess you missed that.

No one could have screwed this war up more the than the Republicans. The Bush, Rumsfeld, and Bremer team was a huge disaster. That team and their bungling was every Democrat’s political wet dream. The nation gave them (the Dems) both houses of congress last year because the people wanted change.

Look at what the Dems have accomplished since then. They had the opportunity to stop the war and they FAILED miserably. They are now falling all over themselves trying to distance themselves from the MoveOn ad because they know the ad went way too far. It is almost funny to see them snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Congress sent Patraeus to Iraq, now they don’t like that he is reporting progress. If he was such a lying bag of shit, and just a tool of the President, why did those losers in congress (Dems and Repubs) send him to lead our troops?

How does reporting progress show a preference for one political party over another?

Don’t think you have to hold back. You won’t hurt my feelings, I expect to be insulted by people like you because of my husband is in the military.

Johnny D:

Perhaps you don't recall Ann Coulter saying that what really happend to Max Cleland was that he was drinking beer and that the grenade went off because he was drunk. No proof of course. Of course, you conveniently forgot that.

Spouse:

You forgot that Petraeus wrote an article in 2004 backing the Republicans. So if he did that 3 years ago, why wouldn't we think that his report wasn't political??

Pelosi is right - after all these years of attacks against Democrats by the Republicans and their minions, the left is starting to hit back. And now the little sissy Republicans are crying "no fair!!" Why don't you Republicans do what you did when you were kids - take your ball and go home!!!

The 2004 article never says anything about backing Republicans and not backing Democrats. To say it does is a lie.

"Sissy Republicans"?

Dems and Repubs see how much the American public thought that ad was a sleazy hit piece. The Repubs aren't the ones running away from the MoveOn ad.

What does that tell you?

General Petraeus was given a mission, he is seeing some success? How does that 'support' the Repubs and how is that 'bad' for he Dems

Spouse...huh?!?!

I was not aware that Betrayus reports to Congress. Something about Commander in Chief in the Constitution. I wasn't insulting you until you called me ignorant. Perhaps if you were a little smarter, you would have heard that his own troops coined the term 'Betrayus'. We're not going to shut up because you're buddy Rush Limpbaugh has his panties in a knot.

The best way to support the troops is to bring them home.

Whether or not the Administration has some comeuppance coming their way, whether or not it really matters that 18 of the 22 most corrupt members of Congress are Republicans (the fact isn't disputed, but it's true that there'd probably be more Democrats under the scope if they had more power to broker), the dishonesty of the Republican party and the attack on General Petraeus are two very separate issues, and I hold that the MoveOn.org ad was in the very worst of taste.

There's absolutely no honesty in calling Barack Obama "Osama" and making a big to-do about his middle name "Hussein" in the hopes people will associate him not only WITH terrorists, but AS a terrorist. To the same degree and with the same reasoning, "Betrayus" is misapplied and dishonest as well. This isn't even political discourse -- it's a kindergarten tantrum gone global.

Weinerlessbrain, please provide proof that our troops coined the phrase "Betrayus." Is that something you got from a Loony Left blog site?
And Weinerlessbrain, you are ignorant. In fact, you are an embarrassment. To put down the military the way you do and the wife of a serviceman, in fact, makes you out and out scum. But then we already knew that, didn't we?

Wiener was right. I should have said when General Petraeus 'testified' before congress. Petraeus reported his findings up the chain-of-command before his testimony.

Thank you for pointing that out.

"We're not going to shut up because you're buddy Rush Limpbaugh has his panties in a knot."

Keep talking, you are a wonderful spokeman for the military-hating loony left.

Here you go, Johnny - read it and weep.

"On September 10, MoveOn.org's much-discussed advertisement headlined "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" critical of Gen. David Petraeus, appeared in The New York Times. On the September 11 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called the advertisement "contemptible" and "indecent." However, months earlier, on his radio show, he told his audience that he had a new name for Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Senator Betrayus." On the January 25 broadcast (subscription required) of his radio show, Limbaugh broke from his commentary on an interview of Vice President Dick Cheney on the January 24 edition of CNN's The Situation Room to say: "By the way, we had a caller call, couldn't stay on the air, got a new name for Senator Hagel in Nebraska, we got General Petraeus and we got Senator Betrayus, new name for Senator Hagel." A day earlier, Hagel had sided with Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in voting to approve a nonbinding resolution declaring that Bush's escalation in Iraq was against "the national interest."

In a September 10 blog post, Politico senior political writer Ben Smith reported that the General Betray Us ad "appears to have been borrowed indirectly from Rush Limbaugh and noted that "[a]ccording to a Free Republican [sic: Free Republic] diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel." In the January 26 post Smith cited, Free Republic commenter "Recovering_Democrat" wrote that "Rush said on his show yesterday that a caller suggested the new name for Senator Hagel."

Indeed, on the February 4 edition of ABC's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos told Hagel that Limbaugh "calls you 'Senator Betrayus.' " On the February 5 broadcast of his radio show, Limbaugh played an audio clip of Stephanopoulos telling Hagel that Limbaugh calls him "Senator Betrayus." Limbaugh didn't disavow the characterization; in fact, Limbaugh said in response to Hagel's comments: "But note he doesn't comment specifically on what I say. 'Well, you know, Rush has to be somewhere, he can say whatever he wants,' but didn't dispute the substance of my point."

Not that MoveOn should take any advice from Senator DoNothing Pelosi. The ad in question has done more to bring Iraq to the forefront of discussion than the Senator has done since her party (and mine) gained control. With respect, Madam Speaker, get out of the way if you aren't going to accomplish what the people want.

Spouse, no problem. Myself, and my 3 million other Move On members intend to keep speaking out.

Oh, and nice try attempting to be 'balanced'.

Wingnut.

Thank you Bobin.
Anyway, I am fine with the Sen. Betrayus comment for Hagel. But Hagel is a politician. Gen. Petraeus is military (and yes I know Hagel is a vet), he's in the field today, he's leading our men and women in Iraq.

Weinerlessbrain, I'm glad you finally came out and said you are moveon.org scum. Course, I am not surprised.
You see, you are the worst mankind has to offer.

The Betrayus ad, whether you think it insults the miltary or not, speaks the truth. And sometimes the truth hurts. He wrote an outright lie of an article before the 2004 election saying how wonderful things were going in Iraq. Th staged marketplace in Iraq theat McCain strolled around to show how safe Iraq is, was built by Petraeus and as one soldier stated, it was his baby. And the vendors were paid several thousand dollars each to be there to give the impression that all is well. Sounds like propaganda to me.
The editorial in the Aug 19 NY Times, "The War as we saw it" gives a much more honest assessment of the surge than our 4Star puppet gave.

I was disgusted about MoveOn.org's against one of the bravest persons on the planet, General Patraeus.

Three Democrats I know have become ex-Democrats due to this ad and are voting Republican in 2008.

Why doesn't MoveOn.org run an ad against Osama bin laden? Is it due to MoveOn members liking Bin laden?

Keep calling everyone that doesn’t agree with your and Moveon’s attack on the military names, and see how far you guys get in 08. Keep sending out the message that any progress in the war is bad for America.

As more Dems run away from you and MoveOn, who are you and your 3 million other loony lefties going to try and influence? If Dems like Nancy Pelosi don't like your message, what do moderate Dems and Independents think?

You can’t help the candidates you want to see get elected by alienating most Americans? I, like many people, don’t have any love for the Republican Party. But right now, they aren’t the one’s trying to assassinate the character of members of our military.

You want Republicans out of office, but you do things to guarantee them a victory in 08. Keep up the good work.

[quote]
BC, please provide proof that Limbaugh called Chuck Hagel, Sen. Betrayus.

Posted by: John D | September 24, 2007 12:15 PM
[/quote]

That's real easy, John D, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood". You see, unlike you, when I post something that's a FACT and NOT AN OPINION, I can back it up:

(From www.politico.com - one of Bruce's favored sites):

[quote]
A footnote to the fuss over MoveOn's "General Betray Us" ad, a favored GOP talking point of the day. (Genius? Idiocy? Interested in readers' views.)

Anyway, it also appears to have been borrowed, indirectly, from Rush Limbaugh. According to a Free Republican diary, Rush took a call in January from a listener who suggested he contrast General Petraeus with Senator Chuck Betrayus -- i.e., Hagel.
[/quote]

source: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/General_Betray_Us.html

Wiener,

Where did you and your 3 million MoveOn buddies go?

John D: "Attacking Gen. Petreaus today is no different than the folks back in the 1960s and 1970s spitting on the returning Vietnam troops."

No such event has ever been documented.

• Petreaus is not merely an active duty general, he is also the Lt. Gen. whose efforts to train Iraqi military and police after Bremer's ILLEGAL debaathification project was such a failure.

Should he be challenged on the failure? Or is it enough to challenge the legal basis of the entire operation stem to stern?

I wouldn't spit in any soldier's face, but the generals in this crimewave deserve court martial, not some sort of automatic respect because they are effectively killing a million and half civilians and making another 5 million homeless and displaced, as a result of the illegal destruction of their cities and the failure of the occupying authority to reestablish basic services.