NY Times mischaracterized Boxer amendment, claimed it was "extremely similar" to Cornyn amendment repudiating MoveOn.org ad
SUMMARY: A New York Times article on the passage of Sen. John Cornyn's amendment repudiating a MoveOn.org ad critical of Gen. David Petraeus described another amendment by Sen. Barbara Boxer as "extremely similar" and claimed that Boxer's amendment "did not mention the MoveOn.org ad." In fact, Boxer's amendment did mention the MoveOn.org ad but, unlike Cornyn's amendment, also noted Republican-backed attacks against Democratic Sen. John Kerry and former Sen. Max Cleland in condemning "all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism" of those who have served in the military.
In a September 21 article on the passage of Sen. John Cornyn's (R-TX) amendment that, in the words of the amendment, "repudiate[s] the unwarranted personal attack on General [David H.] Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org," The New York Times reported that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was "curiously absent from the vote," and that "Mr. Obama had voted minutes earlier in favor of an extremely similar resolution proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California." According to the article: "Ms. Boxer's proposal, which failed, called for the Senate to 'strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism' of anyone in the United States armed forces. It did not mention the MoveOn.org ad." In fact, Boxer's amendment did mention the MoveOn.org advertisement, calling it an "an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus." Moreover, in describing the amendments as "extremely similar," the Times did not report that, while Cornyn's amendment singled out the MoveOn.org ad, Boxer's amendment also cited Republican-backed attacks against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) in condemning "all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably" in the military.
Also, in reporting simply that Boxer's amendment "failed," the Times did not note that 50 senators voted in support of the measure while 47 voted against it, and that the opposition was almost entirely Republican -- Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against both the Boxer and Cornyn amendments. Under an agreement reached by the Senate leadership, a cloture vote and a vote on final passage were combined for this and other Iraq-related amendments, meaning that the amendment needed 60 votes to pass.
From Boxer's amendment:
(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 [Cleland] 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 [Kerry] 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.
From the September 21 New York Times article:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, both Democratic candidates for president, voted against the resolution, which passed 72 to 25.
But curiously absent from the vote was Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, also a Democratic candidate for president, who had canceled a campaign appearance in South Carolina so he could be in Washington for votes.
Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the resolution, put forward by Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, ''a stunt.'' Mr. Obama said, ''By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against these empty politics.''
Mr. Obama had voted minutes earlier in favor of an extremely similar resolution proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.
Ms. Boxer's proposal, which failed, called for the Senate to ''strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity and patriotism'' of anyone in the United States armed forces. It did not mention the MoveOn.org ad. Mr. Dodd and Mrs. Clinton also voted in favor of Ms. Boxer's proposal.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, was in Iowa and did not vote.
Wow. Talk about a race to the bottom. This is abolutely pathetic. We're bogged down in a war which is sucking us dry...a war that was based on lies...a war that Alan Greenspan says was about confiscating the oil from a third world country...and our lawmakers are arguing over a newspaper ad that hurt somebody's feelings. Boo f***ing Hoo. I'm all broken up about General Petraeus's "honor". If he's that delicate, he's in the wrong business. Give it a rest, already. This is another manufactured outrage.
Bingo Nerzog...
Thomas Frank called it the right-wing Plen-T-Plaint.
The ability of the right-wing noise machine to create a whole class of deluded souls who are perpetually offended.
I haven't had a chance to listen to Rush Limbaugh today, but I can only imagine the tearful calls he's getting from his pinheaded sycophants...about how the honor of this great patriot has been besmirched by those evil Democrats and how it hurts the troops and helps the terrorists and thank God we have Rush Limbaugh to shine the light of truth one those wicked Libruls....Bwaaaaaaaaaa!
Just another example of the polarized/two-faced environment we live in.
The rightys get all bent out of shape about an ad critical of one of shrub's stooges (and I'm sorry, politicizing the military is another deplorable thing the bush administration has done - just like what they did to the Department of Justice)
Yet they can smear and malign with impunity others who have served their country (Kerry, Cleland and Murtha come to mind) just because they happen to have a (D) after their name.
to paraphrase darth cheney - "You can go f*** yourselves"A general that's a stooge for a president that has no credibility forfeited his own credibility once he decided to go along with the "commander guy"....
As former military myself, I'm quite disgusted what these criminals have done to the armed forces of our country.
I'm a vet and just as digusted with these clowns. They're so concerned with the feelings of this General, yet they wouldn't vote to grant the grunts as much time at home as they spend at war.
I think it's a good time to again mention this great post by Driftglass. Don't miss it.
Thanks for that link. I especially liked the cartoons and quotes from Republicans criticizing Clinton for his conduct of military matters. I guess the troops were less "sensitive" back in those days.
Senator Chuck Hagel appeared on Bill Maher's show last week. He lambasted Bush for hiding behind General Petraeus, and using him to sell his flawed policy.
Bush is the one who thrust Petraeus into the political arena.
Exactly correct. Patraeus had no business being asked if we are safer as a result of Iraq, that is a question for Bush. He ought to be ashamed for throwing his General under the bus, let him sell his own war.
Key Difference: The Kerry and Cleland attacks were about situations that absolutely weren't true (Kerry), or twisted so far out of context as to be 180° away from his actual record and efforts (Cleland).
Petreus was not "personally attacked." Whether or not you think the name "Betray Us" was over the top, the article was substantiated by citing (on MoveOn's website) how Petreus's statements were not congruent with independent studies of the situation in Iraq, and therefore his words need to be questioned. Therefore, MoveOn's ad was not a "personal attack" in the conventional sense, but rather a "fact-based attack."
It's one thing when groups or parties try to smear anyone (veteran or not) with false or misleading information, but it is our right as Americans, not to mention our civic duty, to object when anyone (veteran or not) is not fulfilling our expectation to tell us the whole truth.
If being or having been in the military protects categorically against attack, how do we prevent politicians from capitalizing on their records to mislead us?
Salman Rushdie was on Bill Maher's show this week and pointed out how this Republican outrage over the MoveOn ad is part and parcel of the way the Administration and their allies in Congress and the right-wing media (as always ably abetted by the lapdogs in the mainstream media) don't talk about the war, but talk about talking about the war.