Senate Set To Vote Today On Condemning MoveOn -- And On Boxer's Alternative
Looks like there's going to be another contentious vote in the Senate today. Harry Reid's office tells me that there's going to be a vote today on a GOP-introduced resolution on whether to condemn MoveOn for running its ad criticizing Scholar-Warrior Petraeus.
But there's an interesting twist to this. I'm told that Senator Barbara Boxer is set to introduce a separate counter resolution, which hasn't yet been made public, that would call for condemation of all political attacks on the "honor, integrity, and patriotism" of men and women in the military. Boxer's reso specifically mentions GOP attacks on both Max Cleland in 2002 and John Kerry in 2004, in addition to the MoveOn ad against Petraeus.
What this means is that Republicans who want to condemn MoveOn will also now be asked to condemn the Republican National Committee and other GOPers' attacks on both Cleland and Kerry. It will be interesting to see how Republican Senators handle this one.
I've obtained a copy of Boxer's resolution; its full text is after the jump.
Late Update: Senate debate on this is underway.
Here's Boxer's resolution:
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.
Comments (32)
American1989 wrote on September 20, 2007 11:40 AM:I love Sen. Boxer! She is great!
DaveW wrote on September 20, 2007 11:42 AM:Bad idea. The MoveOn ad asked whether Petraeus would betray us by following the Bush propaganda line. He pretty much admitted that he felt he had to say what his superior would want.
Harsh language, but not a blatant lie like the Cleland and Kerry attacks. It's time to get over this military-worship crap, not rev it up.
Just vote the damn thing down and use the debate to point out that the slave conditions the Republicans just protected will break their bones, but names will never hurt them.
The Republicans blatantly chose to protect Bush instead of the troops. They have no business pretending to defend the soldiers they just voted to kill.
fishbrake wrote on September 20, 2007 11:42 AM:Of course the attacks on Cleland and Kerry were lies whereas the attack on Petraeus is true. How come the Democrats can't just prevent this kind of thing from coming to the floor? Or does that only happen with measures intended to help our troops?
Kelly Burnett wrote on September 20, 2007 11:43 AM:What a total waste of time. This is not how you conduct business, this is pure politics, Congress makes me wanna puke, all the SOB's in both houses need to go. America is going to hell in a hand basket and all these asses can do is play games.
What about the racist ad against Harold Ford?
Espumoso wrote on September 20, 2007 11:51 AM:I'm glad the Senator from California is spending her time on this instead of defending the right to Habeas Corpus.
A couple of strongly worded statements and a Sense of the Senate resolution should just about counterbalance the loss of a founding principle of this place we call America.
We pay them to do this?
mark wrote on September 20, 2007 11:53 AM:How does this get on the calendar? Don't Democrats control what gets voted on?
Pete wrote on September 20, 2007 11:56 AM:It's stupid to even compare the attacks on Kerry and Cleland to the MoveOn ad. Why doesn't some Democratic Senator just put a secret hold on this asinine piece of Republican propaganda? The Republicans do this all the time with legislation that is actually important. Stop wasting our time on stuff like this.
ALTON OLSON wrote on September 20, 2007 11:57 AM:How about calling on the Repubs to condemn Ann Coulter who called for the killing of John Edwards?
Anonymous wrote on September 20, 2007 11:58 AM:Filibuster!!!
Sportin' Life wrote on September 20, 2007 11:59 AM:No, this response is weak and counterproductive. In this country, we're allowed to criticize the military--period, end of story. And that's true regardless of whether the target of criticism is Lyddie England or "ass-kissing little chickensh*t" Petraeus (CentCom Chief Admiral William Fallon's words, not mine).
Dems should stand for principle and bash GOP heads with strong first amendment rhetoric instead of engaging in (yet another) "but they do it too" whinge. Even though I know Sen. Boxer means well with this effort.
Sienna wrote on September 20, 2007 12:02 PM:Time to defund Congress. And what Kelly Burnett said.
Nin wrote on September 20, 2007 12:05 PM:Bound em all up....the underwear in that room must be pretty uncomfortable about now. "wanna talk about move on, fine, let's do, and let's also talk about swiftboats" perfect!
pol wrote on September 20, 2007 12:05 PM:I'm glad the Senator from California is spending her time on this instead of defending the right to Habeas Corpus.
A couple of strongly worded statements and a Sense of the Senate resolution should just about counterbalance the loss of a founding principle of this place we call America.
We pay them to do this?
And you want them to vote for the Republicans' bill without some kind of retort? We'd be screaming bloody murder if Dems didn't do something in response.
Cronyn's amendment is stupid and so is Boxer's. Since when does serving the military make you above reproach? Lee Harvey Oswald and Timothy McVeigh served in the military.
Anonymous wrote on September 20, 2007 12:07 PM:I'm not sure I can stand sixteen more months of this nonsense, and I'm even less certain the country can survive it. Everything Congress does, and everything the media and talking heads cover, is positioning for 2008. This is like pregame hype for the SuperBowl...it starts a lot sooner and lasts a lot longer than the game itself.
We have made government a spectator sport.
Simply nauseating.
Anonymous wrote on September 20, 2007 12:08 PM:Democrats better take control. Peddling in this kind of Republican BS only makes them look lame. If they are in control of Congress, they better act like it and focus on issues that matter. Leave the sniveling petty stuff to the Republicans, it's all they are good for anway.
WTF? wrote on September 20, 2007 12:12 PM:Why should we not question or criticize someone just because they have served in the military?
Hitler also served in the military. Maybe history would have turned out better had more people questioned his honor and integrity!
And I also agree with the other posts that question why are the Dems wasting their time on this instead of making the Repubs vote day after day to keep fighting the war in Iraq. We need a resolution to revoke the President's power to continue this war. Make them vote on it every day!
markg8 wrote on September 20, 2007 12:12 PM:I just called Reid's office and gave an earful to the kid who answered the phone. This is pathetic. Here's the number: 202-224-3542
markg8 wrote on September 20, 2007 12:14 PM:George W. Bush was in the Tx. Air Nat'l. Guard. Does he count or should I be considered un American if I criticize him?
Jay Saul wrote on September 20, 2007 12:27 PM:As a Vietnam combat veteran with 3 Bronze Stars and a purple heart and one of the very first vets to be diagnosed with PTSD, I can tell you the Army et al, like the Congress have many dishonorable members. To give unquestioning support to all members of any power group is insane. STOP FUNDING THE WAR.
mo2 wrote on September 20, 2007 12:29 PM:Waste of time! Stop this pathetic show! Don't give the Republic Party (GW does not say Democratic, so I choose to not say the last syllable of his party) any floor time in Congress. Shut those lying, selfrighteous children of whores up. Don't let them say a damned word in our Congress!
They are the party of the swift boaters! How dare they!
Espumoso wrote on September 20, 2007 12:30 PM:No Pol. This type of garbage--on both sides-- should never come to the floor.
Ever.
The R's block important legislation with procedural rules all the time as the *minority* party. You'd think the pugilist Reid could keep this rubbish from seeing the light of day, while forcing the R's to filibuster Habeas Corpus--with one hand tied behind his back.
Unfortunately the D's have "Battered Congresspersons' Syndrome" from all the abuse they suffered from 1994 to 2006.
BobPM wrote on September 20, 2007 12:35 PM:If Petraus massaged the date or otherwise misrepresented information to Congress, he should be condemned. Boxer is granting him a free pass and ignores the substance of the issue--do we know if the still secret methodology he used is BS?
Second, no one is attacking Petraus' personal valor and courage as a soldier, which was what was done to Kerry and Cleland.
All Democratic responses to this nonsense should be: "If" the general massaged the data then his actions warrant criticism, and right now we still have serious questions about his report and the White House is not giving us all the information.
pacc wrote on September 20, 2007 12:36 PM:What nonsense. Military people are not above reproach, especially when their conduct is politicized or legitimately questionable.
Shoes4Industry wrote on September 20, 2007 12:39 PM:Are these fucking idiots out of their minds? No wonder their approval rating is at 11%, and that's being generous!
"Late Update: Senate debate on this is underway."
This type of 5th grade school yard activity by Congress is the height and depth of our national leadership?! - in a time of mounting national and international deficits, of American soldiers being killed for a pack of White House lies, of an infrastructure falling apart, of open failure of our FBI, CIA, Homeland Security, illegal spying on Americans and God only knows what else?
You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.
bob wrote on September 20, 2007 12:50 PM:Boxer needs to add John "Small Price" Boehner to the list.
phil james wrote on September 20, 2007 12:54 PM:...something about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If the Dems in Congress are not part of the solution, that is, doing everything, 24/7, they can to halt and reverse Iraq policy in everything they say and most especially in BINDING legislation, then they are part of the problem and they too shall be held accountable. Resolution. Sense of the Senate. Bullcrap!
jvill wrote on September 20, 2007 1:04 PM:This is a horrible idea.
Even IF it was somehow wrong to criticize a general (which it's not), does anyone think Republicans would stick to this idea?
How long before The Man They Call Petraeus is back in front of the cameras completely free to lie his lily-white butt off? If anyone calls him on it, will they be tarred and feathered?
Also, the fact that this idea is proposed at all, by either party, just goes to show how little is known about the military culture. Our soldiers and Marines KNOW the generals are the political class of the military. The soldiers and Marines know these guys lie for political reasons.
To call out a political actor for acting politically while claiming to be acting objectively is something our soldiers and Marines EXPECT THE AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO COMMAND THIS MILITARY TO DO.
jeffgee wrote on September 20, 2007 1:23 PM:A sideshow. Pure chaff, like the stuff planes throw out to deflect heat-seeking missiles. She's playing into the GOP game plan, which is to stifle any criticism of the military. Does this go up the cheain of command to the commander in chief? That's the direction the GOP would take it. No critics "in time of war". Never mind that the war was their idea, executed disastrously by Bush, Cheney and their cabinet.
Is this some sort of a support-the-troops-more-than-thou game? Habeas corpus and unlimited spying and troops' home leave duration are much more important than whether a General's feelings are hurt. Since when are generals sacrocanct? Sure, Kerry and Cleland were slandered for GOP political gain but this is not necessary for the functioning of a free society.
What the Dems should do here is abstain from any involvement. Let the Repugs waste time. Don't vote on the issue, don't discuss it, don't acknowledge anything other than the complete waste of time this is.
She represents me, and I'm usually very supportive of her, but I'm not happy with Boxer over this. This is not the kind of thing that should be dignified in any shape way or form.
