September 20, 2007

Democrats -- or Dhimmicrats?

Hatched by Dafydd

And while we're on the subject of roll-call votes, how about this one?

For several days now, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX, 96%) has been pushing an amendment to condemn the MoveOn.org ad that asked "General Petraeus -- or General Betray Us?" He also demanded the Senate support our troops and the man the Senate unanimously confirmed as their leader. The text was as follows:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. 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.

But the Democrats were reluctant to vote for such an amendment; in fact, they ducked it the first time, a couple of days ago. Then today, in an effort to undercut support for the Cornyn amendment, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA, 95%) introduced her own version of the amendment:

To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

Note the changes: "Full support" has shrunk to "strong support;" the condemnation of "personal attacks" has become a condemnation merely of "attacks" (I suppose calling someone a liar, a stooge, and someone for whom one must suspend disbelief isn't necessarily personal).

But the most important change: Gen. Petraeus -- the actual victim of Democratic hate speech -- has been erased from our memory. He has become an "un-person." Under the Boxer version, all one need do is assert that Petraeus is not honorably serving (all that lying and stooging), and the hate speech can spew forth without condemnation.

Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Caesar's Palace, 90%) insisted that, notwithstanding the timeline, the Boxer amendment would be voted on first. But Republicans refused to go along with the trick; they refused to agree to the vote and filibustered... and the Democrats were unable to overcome it, losing the vote by 51 to 46 in favor (60 needed)... and that's including Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT, 75%D), who voted in favor of the Boxer amendment.

We fast forward 38 minutes. At long last, the Cornyn amendment came up for a vote. Mind, by this time, there was no alternative to the Cornyn amendment; if it went down, then the Senate would have chosen not to condemn the MoveOn ad and not to support Petraeus and the troops.

Fortunately, it passed... but by only 72 to 25, with 3 not voting. Shockingly enough, not a single vote against the amendment came from a Republican. Nor did any Republican fail to vote. Rather, all 49 Senate Republicans voted "To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. 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."

24 out of 49 Democrats -- 50% of the caucus -- voted against condemning the ad calling Petraeus a traitor, against supporting the troops, and against supporting the man every, last one of them voted to confirm less than eight months ago... during which time, he turned around the war effort, which now is headed towards victory. Among those voting against condemning the "General Betray Us" ad are presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (D-Carpetbag, 95%) and Chris Dodd (D-CT, 95%).

The other two senators running for the Democratic nomination for president -- Joe Biden (D-DE, 100%) and Barack Obama (D-IL, 95%) -- were too cowardly to cast a vote. Biden also ducked the vote on Barbara "the Underminer" Boxer's amendment, but Obama managed to crawl out of his hole long enough to vote for the weak-tea Boxer version.

Independent Socialist Bernie Sanders (I-VT, not yet rated) voted for the Boxer version but against the Cornyn version; Independent Joe Lieberman voted for both versions.

So there you have it: One party wholeheartedly supports the troops, supports Gen. Petraeus, and condemns the vicious, personal attack by MoveOn.org which questions Petraeus' patriotism.

In the other party, half of the members do not support the troops, do not support their commander, and applaud and join in the attacks on Petraeus' character and patriotism.

Be sure to let your friends know... especially those on the center-left. Perhaps they should consider the depth of hatred this betokens when they step into the little booth in November 2008.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 20, 2007, at the time of 12:37 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2444

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Athos

Just another point to ponder along with your excellent analysis......23 of the 25 Senators who voted against the Cornyn amendment (and in particular this part of the amendment - "deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus") voted to confirm the General in January.

What changed their minds?

To 'kill' the messenger who had a message they didn't want to hear? (In which case were they wrong in January or wrong now?)

or

To not condemn an organization that, according to the organization, 'bought and owns' them as they enter another election season? (Demonizing a brave soldier for political advantage?)

Either way - this core of the D party does not look good.

The above hissed in response by: Athos [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 20, 2007 1:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: kimsch

Dafydd, John Cornyn (R-TX, 96%).

The above hissed in response by: kimsch [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 20, 2007 2:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: phil g

They were all for the surge before they were against it.

Damn that Bush has to go and implement their demand...damn

The next move of the goal post will put it in the parking lot.

Let's condem Iraq for not having a sufficient multi-cultural society...no blacks, no Hispanics, no indiginous Indians, no transexual transgender homosexuals.

The above hissed in response by: phil g [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 20, 2007 2:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Kimsch:

Oops, thanks. I usually go back and add the parenthetical stuff later, all of them at once; it's easy to get confused...!

I corrected it.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 20, 2007 2:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: kimsch

Thanks Dafydd, who says there aren't layers of editors in the blogosphere?

The above hissed in response by: kimsch [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 20, 2007 3:08 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terry Gain

General David Petraeus (All American, 100%)

Destroyer of al Qaeda -and Democratic dreams of power. Now he's gone and killed al Masri, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq. Is there anyting he won't do to make Bush look good? No wonder Democrats feel betrayed. They have been betrayed. Defeat is now looking more and more unlikely. These are deperate times. Oh dear.

The above hissed in response by: Terry Gain [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 20, 2007 8:35 PM

The following hissed in response by: Rovin

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party’s latest effort to damage/sabotage surge success in Iraq fails in Senate. Webb’s attempt to use his military prowess formulating a troop deployment strategy that he had to know would wreck havoc on command and control in the theater got "shot down" for the second time.

What the "defeatocrats", (and the minions at "Movement.Org") don't seem to come to grips with is that following the meter-maids in the mainstream media that promote defeat and surrender for the advancement of a political agenda is not what this nation will stand for. When our brave soldiers are pounding our enemies on all fronts and propaganda machine of Al-Qaeda shows it's desperation by finding "new" countries to declare war against, many will wonder how far we could have advanced in the war on terrorism if this nation were united in victory instead of betraying a general who has givin his life to protect this nation from harm.

The above hissed in response by: Rovin [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 21, 2007 4:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: Mutt

Perhaps they should have change the language a little.

To express the sense of the Senate that we are not bought and paid for by MoveOn.org, that we are able to decide for ourselves whether to give 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.
This would have been a more acurate roll call vote.

The above hissed in response by: Mutt [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 21, 2007 5:10 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

Excellent analysis.
I hope we can someday have to parties competing to serve the needs of this nation, with both being patriotic and pro-American.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 21, 2007 5:54 AM

The following hissed in response by: David M

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 09/21/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.

The above hissed in response by: David M [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 21, 2007 8:35 AM

The following hissed in response by: Beldar

Those were just the summaries of the resolutions. To understand the dynamic of the Boxer version, you have to read the whole thing:

Purpose: To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES–110th Cong., 1st Sess.

H.R. 1585

To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

AMENDMENT intended to be proposed by

Viz:

At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:

SEC. __ SENSE OF SENATE

(a) FINDINGS — The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The men and women of the United States Armed Forces and our veterans deserve to be supported, honored, and defended when their patriotism is attacked;

(2) In 2002, a Senator from Georgia who is a Vietnam veteran, triple amputee, and the recipient of a Silver Star and Bronze Star, had his courage and patriotism attacked in an advertisement in which he was visually linked to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein;

(3) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as “reprehensible”;

(4) In 2004, a Senator from Massachusetts who is a

Vietnam veteran and the recipient of a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three Purple Hearts, was personally attacked and accused of dishonoring his country;

(5) This attack was aptly described by a Senator and Vietnam veteran as “dishonest and dishonorable.”

(6) On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States; and

(7) Such personal attacks on those with distinguished military service to our nation have become all too frequent.

(b) SENSE OF SENATE. — It is the sense of the Senate –

(1) to reaffirm its strong support for all of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces; and

(2) to strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.

Moral equivalence, doncha know. Kerry, Cleland, and Patraeus are practically triplets separated at birth, in terms of their military records.

The above hissed in response by: Beldar [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2007 1:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: Beldar

*cough*second-class citizen*cough*comments in queue*cough*site owner doesn't trust me

The above hissed in response by: Beldar [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2007 1:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Beldar:

Erm -- neither of your comments was held for moderation; you're a Protected Person... your comments slither right on past any such filters!

If they didn't appear immediately, it was some problem with Hosting Matters, not Big Lizards.

I notice that no "Senator and Vietnam veteran" is listed as having stepped up to the plate and called the Petraeus attacks either reprehensible or dishonest and dishonorable...!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 22, 2007 4:07 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved