Daily News' Goodwin claimed Boxer amendment "almost identical" to Cornyn amendment "except that it did not mention MoveOn"
SUMMARY: In a New York Daily News column, Michael Goodwin claimed that a Democratic amendment that "condemn[ed] 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" was "almost identical" to an alternative Republican amendment "except that [the Democratic amendment] did not mention MoveOn." Though the Democratic amendment did not refer to MoveOn.org by name, it did specifically criticize MoveOn's ad about Gen. David Petraeus.
In a September 23 New York Daily News column, Michael Goodwin claimed that an amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) -- which "condemn[ed] 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" -- was "almost identical" to an alternative amendment offered by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), "except that [Boxer's amendment] did not mention MoveOn." Though Boxer's amendment did not refer to the progressive grassroots group MoveOn.org by name, it did specifically criticize MoveOn's advertisement in the September 10 New York Times -- titled "General Petraeus or General Betray Us?" -- as "an unwarranted personal attack on General [David] Petraeus."
After asserting that Boxer's amendment "did not mention MoveOn," Goodwin went on to criticize Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) for voting against Cornyn's amendment and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for not voting on it. (Both senators voted in favor of Boxer's amendment.) Goodwin falsely claimed Clinton "refus[ed] to denounce the far-left MoveOn.org for its smear of our top commander in Iraq," adding, "Clinton has taken another big step away from the center of American politics." Goodwin also claimed that Obama "duck[ed]" "the vote against MoveOn" by not voting on Cornyn's amendment.
Moreover, Goodwin's description of the two amendments as "almost identical" overlooks a significant difference between the two. Indeed, unlike the Cornyn amendment, which, in the words of that amendment, "repudiate[s] the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org" and "condemn[s] any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces," the Boxer amendment cited the Republican-backed attacks against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) regarding their military service, as well as the MoveOn.org ad.
As Media Matters for America has noted, a September 21 New York Times article on the passage of Cornyn's amendment falsely claimed that Boxer's amendment "did not mention the MoveOn.org ad" and -- much like Goodwin's column -- stated that Boxer's amendment was "extremely similar" to Cornyn's. Despite both claiming that the two pieces of legislation were very similar, ignoring the Cornyn amendment's omission of attacks on Democrats, neither Goodwin nor Times reporter David M. Herszenhorn noted the inconsistency in the votes of the 46 Republicans who opposed the Boxer amendment while voting for the Cornyn amendment.
From Goodwin's September 23 column, headlined, "Now playing left field ...: Hillary's refusal to condemn attacks on Gen. Petraeus is unpresidential":
'The clatter of campaign promises being thrown out the window" was how the late Sen. Daniel Moynihan famously scolded a congressional witness 15 years ago. Fast-forward to the current campaign of Moynihan's successor, and one hears a different but no less disconcerting clatter. It is the sound of Sen. Hillary Clinton throwing away the chance to build support in the military she hopes to command.
With her refusal to denounce the far-left MoveOn.org for its smear of our top commander in Iraq, Clinton has taken another big step away from the center of American politics. On the most important issue of our times -- Iraq and the fight against Islamic terrorism -- the Democratic presidential front-runner has thrown her lot in with the radicals, kooks and nuts that litter the wackadoo wing. And she has turned her back on our soldiers and their leaders during wartime.
This is not the first time she has gone AWOL on the military. Back in May, Clinton voted to cut off all funds for the war. That she was in a small minority then was an alarming indication of how far she was willing to go to placate the anti-war base of the party. It was not, we know now, an aberration.
In the May vote, she was one of only 14 senators to support cutting off funds. In last week's resolution that saluted Gen. David Petraeus and denounced MoveOn for calling him "General Betray Us," in a newspaper ad, Clinton's no vote was one of only 25, with 72 senators voting yes.
It is a sorry spectacle, and incomprehensible because her lurch is wrong in terms of policy and politically unnecessary. The far-left wing does not elect Presidents or usually even pick nominees. Ask Howard Dean.
And Clinton knows she is under additional scrutiny because she is the only woman ever to get this close to being elected President. Fairly or not, women, especially Democratic women who tilt left, are suspect on whether they will be social workers or commanders in chief in a security crunch. Now it will be much harder for her to convince skeptics.
Tellingly, Clinton voted for an earlier resolution Thursday that was almost identical to the one that passed except that it did not mention MoveOn. That resolution failed.
The two resolutions were a litmus test -- by supporting one and opposing the other, Clinton put her ties to the radicals ahead of her ties to the military.
Her closest competitor, Sen. Barack Obama, was worse, if that's possible. Accused last week of "acting white" by the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Obama acted yellow on the Senate votes. He voted for the resolution that failed, then didn't show up for the second one. He said his nonvote was "my protest against these empty politics." That elitist pose would have rung true if he had skipped both votes. By ducking only the vote against MoveOn, he showed he, too, is afraid of the far left.
Blackwater? Who's that? 9 billion dollars missing in Iraq? Huh? What's that? 9 more American soldiers killed? Yawn. Somebody took out an ad insulting a General? HOLY CRAP! Stop the presses! Call out the Marines!
These aren't the droids you're looking for.
the Democratic presidential front-runner has thrown her lot in with the radicals, kooks and nuts that litter the wackadoo wing. And she has turned her back on our soldiers and their leaders during wartime.
Hmmm, something seems wrong with that statement. Think think think... Oh, snap! I've got it!
the Republican presidential front-runners have thrown their lot in with the radicals, kooks and nuts that litter the wackadoo wing. And they have turned their backs on our soldiers and their leaders during wartime.
there, much better!
"Hillary's refusal to condemn attacks on Gen. Petraeus is unpresidential"
Oh, really? Maybe being "presidential" means not getting bogged down in such petty issues? I can't think of much that Bush has done that is "presidential". Well, he does that fake wave thing pretty well when he's walking to the helicopter. I'll give him that.
I thought non presidential would be something like Bush not condemning the swift boat ad, or all the other ads the right is so well known for. But that's just me, I guess...
I'm 95% supportive of the Democratic Party but my god! 22 spineless Democrats get sucked into condemning a petty ad by MoveOn. My own senator (Jim Webb, VA) even got sucked into it, and I thought he was more intelligent than that.
Let's face it; they're scared to death of the Sean Hannity's and Rush Limbaugh's out there.
The sad thing is that by caving in, they don't help themselves. Rush and Sean will lie about them no matter what they do. They might as well stick to what little principle they have left and try to rally their own base.
N:
That should be embossed, stamped and send to every Dem in the country. You're right, it doesn't matter, they will lie like hell despite any overture.
I enjoyed that Hillary Clinton laughed in the stupid face of Chris Wallace when he asked his "gotcha Fox questions." Derision is key against these sell-outs.
Gotta support them troops!...even if this is a war crime in progress.
There was a very simple way for all democrats to come out looking good on this whole "Moveon" vote that they had.
1. Vote against it.
2. Issue a press release telling why they voted against it. The language could have included, but not been limited to the following:
I did not vote for this condemnation not because I don't respect the jobs that our military men and women have been doing in Iraq, and throughout the history of the United States, but because I believe in free speech. I believe that a vote to condemn a group's rights to air their grievances, no matter how much I disagree, or agree with them, puts the United States on a slippery slope of governmental restraints on one of the great freedoms we have in this country. We should not suppress, or condemn, the right of the people to dissent against their government, and its leaders, and to shout that from the rooftops if they so choose. Suppression of dissent is what happens in a facist state, and totalatarian regimes around the world. Is this what we want here in the US? Ask yourselves that question."
I think something like that would have made a good point. But hey, that's just me.
Well, I tend to agree with you. I wonder, though, if they had done that, would the press cover it? Or, would they continue to follow the GOP script and repeatedly ask Democrats to condemn the MoveOn ad? I think the MSM has been pathetic on this issue.
Condemning the ad is much different than suppressing it. I hear your slippery slope argument and agree that such a measure in the halls of the Senate is rather trivial when there are much more pressing matters. The fact remains that although I agree with MoveOn's right to place the ad, it was lacking in taste. To me there are better ways to get your point across. Looks to me more like a publicity stunt than anything. If that is the case that is truly sad, it would be stunningly similiar to politicizing the war, GASP! dissenters would never do such a thing.
Condmening is different though, than condemning by Senate resolution, which, unless I'm mistaken, sort of has the force of law behind it and all. If you disagree with what was written, then by all means, disagree with it, but when you have our Senators standing on the floor debating this and harping against a newspaper ad, it starts to smell of censorship, and removal of our rights to dissent and freedom of speech. I know that in this case, this isn't what happened, but that jump isn't far away from where they landed the other day. And something like that could affect ALL of us.
I agree. Our politicians are getting mighty uppity lately. They legislate over our bodies, they want to legislate over our speech, and they're committing war crimes openly and without shame. Time to vote the whole lot out and get people that actually respect the Bill of Rights.
Did you read the content of the ad? It was pretty dry and factual. Is it just the heading that you thought was poor taste?
I don't know, perhaps the fact that a ideological organization calls a four star who has served his country his entire life a traitor. I equate "betrayus" with calling him a traitor. That is my point. As for the content of the ad, it's not so much the content that bothers me it is that it was timed to coincide with his testimony. Now, calling a man dishonest is one thing, calling a man sho has proudly served country a traitor is another. If you are o.k. with that, fine. You and I disagree as to how to conduct respectful dissent.
Well, I asked you a question. I didn't make any comment on how I felt about it.
But since you asked (sic), I will tell you that the content and the timing was fine by me. The betrayus thing did not offend me as much as a sychophant general actually lying to the public and letting himself be used in a cynical ploy. But I guess that's okay with you.
You didn't have to make a comment on it. Your response to my original post where you asked the question was quite indicative in revealing your stance, hence my response to you. In any event, it's quite obvious you don't respect this man who has served his country essentially his entire life. I encourage you to read Magnolialover's posting later in this thread concerning Petreaus' character and abilities. Furthermore, your snide attempt to equate me with having no problem with someone who lies and does favors for the powerful for his own gain is lacking clarity, to say the least. If you took the time to read the post you would see that I indicated that I had no problems with the content of the ad but rather the way it was presented by MoveOn. Publicity stunt at the expense of a patriot plain and simple.
"I don't know, perhaps the fact that a ideological organization calls a four star who has served his country his entire life a traitor."
MoveOn said he betrayed us, betrayed our trust. He did. And then they provided proof.
Petraeus lied for an overtly political purpose, for an insipid President. We have an out of control army of hired killers in Iraq, loyal not to the Constitution but to a paycheck. So many thousands of dead and maimed soldiers and civilians. Billions and billions and billions of tax dollars spent to sustain profits for Texas oilmen instead of building roads, levees, schools or funding healthcare. Yet right-wingers are whining that a citzen's organization wasn't nice to the White House general who is lying to us? And you're concerned about respectful dissent? Whatever.
And that organization you hold in contempt, that's an organization of 3 million of your fellow American citizens. So much for participation in the political process.
But if lecturing people on what is and is not acceptable political discourse is your thing, here are some talking points.
[link to www.workingassetsblog.com]
Please spare me your symposium on ethics and morality...DAD. I opined that I believe that this ad, in terms of how it was presented and the timing is disrepectful. If you don't like it then fine, join all your birckentstock wearing buddies and feel free to dissent your heart away by attacking someone's character without giving them a chance to respond. Just because the right engages in similiar character assasination does not make other bad behavior justifiable. The ad is a clear indication of their view that Petreaus is a traitor. The operative word being "us" would seem to me to mean the populace of the United States, unless the mean the 3 million in their organization. In any event, they insinuated that he betrayed us. You want to sugar coat it and say it means betray our trust, but then I gather you have never really trusted either him or the administration in the first place. I tend to think it was more of an isinuation that he has betrayed our country, through their insinuation that he has lied to either save his skin or the presidents skin, which has resulted in only more death and destrution. Kinda sounds like an indictment of treason to me. You read into it what you want and I will do the same. There is no reason we can't disagree with some civility. It seems to me that despite how much of the ad may be correct, the way they tried to publicly villify this man is beyond reproach. He isn't an elected official. I would say that MoveOn needs to take there publicity seeking stunts to a higher ethical level. Dissent with some class. is that so hard?
The man lied on an overt political mission to build public support for a war (War. As in death, dismemberment and emotional trauma for human beings) that benefits only oil companies. For that the man is due some respect?
Furthermore, some petty disagreement on how the word betray should be interpreted is ridiculous and, despite the veneer of cordiality, no less insidious than the rest of the hyper-ventilating right-wing propagandists.
Any person who serves his country in eace and war and has risen to his rank deserves respect. You want to call his testimony before congress lies, then you should lead the movement to have him brought up on charges for lying to Congress. Instead you want to see only one side of the story (MoveOn's) in this instance and convict the man of lying and betraying his country. Furthrmore, it is not ridiculous to debate the meaning of betray in this context. It goes to the heart of the discussion. Many on the left, and rightly so, become incensed when those on the right accuse them of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. That is a disrespectful accusation to accuse someone of treason. That is what MoveON did in this instance and it is wrong. For you to defend that by saying that they only indicated he betrayed our trust is is a vile attempt at diversion to make an invalid point. Other than that, the veneer of civility remains in our interactions, as far as I am concerned. You should know better than accusing Petreaus of doing the bidding of oil companies, that type of conspiracy theory crap only serves to negate your points.
To take the same tac you took with JuliaJayne earlier, if you're OK with liars (Petraeus) that's fine, we disagree.
"You should know better than accusing Petreaus of doing the bidding of oil companies, that type of conspiracy theory crap only serves to negate your points."
Count Allen Greenspan as a kook too, then.
O.k. we'll count his retraction too then. I can't wait to see how you lead the movement to have Petreaus tried and convicted of lying to Congress. I wonder why none of the other Senators and Congressman who questioned Petreaus hasn't stepped forward and started proceeding to have him stand trial for lying? I guess it will be up to you, they obviously just didn't see it. Lying to Congress is a crime ya know?
OK fine. Fudging numbers on what constitutes sectarian violence technically isn't lying. Painting a rosy statistical picture of progress in Iraq technically isn't lying.
My apologies. I never should have questioned your superior ability to see through the bs testimony and behold the sterling character that is Petraeus.
And thank goodness you have disabused me of the notion that the occupation of Iraq is not for the sake of securing the flow of oil. What with all those WMD that turned up, the connection to Al Qaeda and the links to 9/11, what was I thinking? How could there be any other reason? Thank you. May I kiss your ring?
Afterall, the good general said he wasn't sure if the occupation of Iraq was making this country safer. And that's good enough for me. He at least couldn't be certain that we're not safer and from a man of that character, speaking for our dear President, that's gotta be good 'nuff for this ignint peasant.
He's not proudly serving his country. He's dishonorably serving his AMBITION and has taken a position of high command in a war CRIME. Just because someone puts on a US uniform does NOT make him a saint. This cult of militarism is not healthy for a democracy.
I'm glad you feel so qualified to speak of this man's ambitions. Have you ever met the man? You have no respect for the military, that is quite obvious. You enjoy the freedom to spout your drivel at the expense of brave men who have fought and died while in uniform. You take every man and woman who has sacrificed for this country for granted while you consistently call the military terrorists and war criminals. Put the bong down and take a trip to reality, a non chemical trip. It will do wonders for your cognitive and abstract thinking abilities.
Oh, and one more thought that I had. This "war" (I put it in quotes because it is technically still not a war, no war resolution was passed for it) has been politicized to NO end by the republicans. Think about the fear mongering that they have done since 9/11 to basically get to do what they want to do, and the thing that makes me the most angry is that the opposition party, namely the democrats, haven't done anything at all to stem the tide. They've rolled over and played dead (as a party, there are of course some standout folks within the democratic party who have gone against their own party) and essentially given George W. Bush anything, and everything that he's wanted and then some over the last 7 years, for fear of being called "Un-Patriotic". It's funny, they let him do what he wants, and they still get branded as such by him, and the republican party. He's come out on how many different occassions and called democratic senators and representatives outright traitors, and terrorist supporters because they opposed shady things he's wanted to do? It's many times over, and yet, they roll, and keep on rolling. It's sad.
Look, I don't disagree that the right has a monopoly on politicizing this war. I'm just saying that one can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. As for the Senate issue, resolutions condemning behavior really don't have any type of rule of law unless enforced by the executive. so, in actuality it would need to be a resolution agreed upon then sent to the President for implementation into law to be enforced.
As I said in my earlier posting I hear your slippery slope argument, I just don't buy this as the best example of suppressing dissent or Congress showing the propensity to supress dissent. I will agree that the Senate should have better things to do. It still does not do away with the fact that MoveOn cold have used a little more tact, unless of course they were publicity shopping. If the latter holds true, I simply posed the likely possibility (admittedly with sarcasm) that they themselves were guilty of politicizing the war. Either way it seems to be to be more of a hit piece than legitimate discourse on their dissent.
I gotcha on that. And mostly agree with what you're saying. I don't agree that the ad itself, the content of it, was a hit piece at all. The headline, most definitely. Because that's what everyone is talking about. They don't speak of what was actually in the ad, in content, they are talking only about the headline. It grabbed our attention, and grabbed the attention of the news organizations around the country, but I think they meant to use it as to pull people in, to read what was written below the bold headline. And remember, in FoxNews type fashion, it wasn't a statement of fact, the headline was a question. Going by their playbook, if you say something nasty in the form of a question, it's OK, because you're just, you know, asking a question is all. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
I think they used it to that effect and learned from the rhetorical masters at Foxnews, and in the meantime, used their own tactics against the right wingers. Know what I mean? Does it make it right? Don't know really, but it did gain publicity, it's just that I think they wanted it to grab publicity for the content, and not the headline.
Excellent point about the headline posed as a question in the Fox News fashion. Never thought about it like that. I will say this, rationale and intelligent people should take the content of the ad with a grain of salt until they at least try to obtain Petreaus' rebuttals (if any exist). Then a true informed decision could be made about the ad content. As for the headline, it still screams of publicity hunting. If Fox News' use of it is bad behavior how does one justify MoveON's use?
Oh, in no way does the headline justify the remainder of the information within the ad itself. I did read the information within, and found it, well, informative. Do I think they were trying to drum up controversy? Of course they were, and it worked, I think we all know that.
To another point you made about Petraeus and his service to this country. I have no doubt, in my mind, that Petraeus is a patriot, and an honorable man, and above that, a highly intelligent person, and probably one of the best, if not THE best general that the Army has had in a long time. He understands the way things work as far as counterinsurgency, and he still has his hands tied because he still doesn't have near enough men on the ground that he would need to make this mission ultimtely succesful, maybe. Because if history tells us anything at all about low level insurgencies, it's that they are hardly ever quelled, if at all. You can try, but it's tough.
Dave Petraeus has served this country honorably, and for a long time. He's earned everything he's ever gotten I think, and then some. We, as a society as a whole, owe him a debt of gratitude, and after reading some books about him, I find him to be competent and once again, honorable. I don't think that the ad phased him one bit.
Chrisp, You're accusing an advertisement of being a publicity stunt? That's like accusing a duck of being a bird. Sorry, that just sounded really funny.
What may qualify as a publicity 'stunt' would be the GOP grandstanding shamelessly on this and lo and behold, getting a lot of publicity for it.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it ain't a bird Sundog. The timing alone solidifies my position on this. But, let's look rationally at this from another angle. The New York Times although the largest print paper in the country (I think?), really doesn't reach that many people as it relates to our overall population. People in French Lick, Indiana or Dandridge, Tn don't rely on the New York Times for their news, they have local papers for that. MoveOn knew that the media and talking heads all pay attention to the New York Times exponentially. MoveOn knew if they used that headline no only would it bring attention to their message but would also bring vigorous debate in the media concerning the meaning of the headline, etc, etc. A thoughtful and respectful advertisment on their dissent? Maybe. A publicity stunt? Oh no, of course not!!!!!
Why couldn't it be both? I say it can and was. I agree that the right wing media has pumped this up. But do you think MoveOn didn't expect this? Come On!!!
What bugs me most is that the Republicans are willing to waste time debating such nonsense, and the Democrats rolled over for it. MoveOn made a bad pun based on Petraeus' name. Boo hoo. If Petraeus did, indeed, lie, then he betrayed our trust. That doesn't necessarily make him a "traitor"...that's just GOP spin. It's what they do best. They've succeeded in getting the press to chase this fart in the wind for over a week now. Meanwhile, we're not talking about the war itself or how to get ourselves out of Bush's disaster. And, we're definitely not talking about the lies told to get us there...but I've stopped hoping for that.
I don't specifically disagree there Nerzog. I would say that utilizing "Betrayus" is a direct insinuation of being a traitor. I never got that from any GOP spin. Believe it or not, I kinda of came up with that intepretation on my own. I tend to think although we are all different in this world there are very few instances in which we are totally individualistic. That leads me to my belated point. If I interpreted that headline in that way, I'm sure many others of indpedent mind did as well. If that is the case, the logical question is ; how does that headline help sway opinion?
Idon't see this headline or ad as an insinuation of betrayel of trust but rather betrayel of "us, we, or his country " or the United States if you will. To me that is disrespectful plain and simple.
The ad may have been in poor taste, maybe the obvious pun Petraeus/betray us implies "traitor" to the average person. Given all of that, it's still just a political ad bought by a left wing advocacy group. Okay...now, we've wasted a week on it; let's get back to the real news. Unfortunately, (and this is where the spin comes in) the Right Wing Parrots won't let it die. The press has been blatantly complicit in this propaganda effort. Did the talking heads demand that Bush distance himself from the "purple heart bandaids"? Did they repeatedly ask him to repudiate the Swiftboat ads? Are they asking the Republicans to defend the obviously dishonest Freedom Watch ads which are running currently? If they did, or have, I somehow missed it.
Good points, I can't disagree there, except wit the intrpretation of the ad in question. I say it means traitor you say different. I think we agree on 99% of this.
Probably. The sad thing is that the text of the ad is pretty much accurate...but nobody has been able to get past the headline.
That seems to me to be more of MoveOn's fault than anyones elses. Perhaps there was no better way to grab peoples attention to this add but I believe there is always another way.
Participation in a war CRIME is NOT serving "honorably". The only honorable soldiers are the ones who REFUSE to participate. And they get court martialed for it. To hold high command in a war CRIME is to be held very accountable, according to the UCMJ and Nuremburg Charter. Petraeus is a war criminal.
Yeah man!!! Let's court martial all those war loving pigs, man. It's all about the Man, man. The Man is keeping us down, man. Fight the power, man. Pass that, man. Anybody, who kills in a war is a war criminal, man. Alrighty then, man.
Look, REDKING, I'm sorry but I just can't take you serious. do you realize the drivel you spout is one ince away from beng labeled psychotic ramblings? I just want to have your opinion on two things? First, who knocked down the world trade center? Second, who killed JFK? I may be able to have a intelligent discussion with you if I can get a bearing on how crazy you really are. With all due respect, of course.
Screw the Dem.s that voted for it. They should have never allowed this to hit the floor for a vote, period. And then they should not have apologizied.
The WH and its minions have evaded and lied to Congress -- forget Congress make that the people -- and Dem.s are apologizing. What control over the Force does the GOP have this is like that time Cheney shot his friend in the face and then his friend apologized. "These are not the droids you are looking for."
Someone mentioned Webb -- he's my Senator also -- I understand his unwillingness to just go where he did on this, given his military history. However, then for the Senate to fail to take up his bill -- a joke.