Globe's Kranish uncritically reported McCain statement that Obama didn't vote to condemn MoveOn for ad
SUMMARY: The Boston Globe's Michael Kranish stated that Sen. John McCain "criticized [Sen. Barack] Obama for not voting for a resolution condemning the antiwar group MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad calling the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, 'General Betray Us.' " But Kranish did not note that Obama did vote for a separate amendment that condemned the ad, as well as other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces.
In a July 21 post to the Boston Globe blog Political Intelligence, staff writer Michael Kranish reported that Sen. John McCain "criticized [Sen. Barack] Obama for not voting for a resolution condemning the antiwar group MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad calling the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, 'General Betray Us.' " But Kranish did not note that, while Obama was not present for the vote on an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that, in the words of the amendment, "repudiate[s] the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org," Obama did vote for a separate amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that condemned the ad, as well as other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces. Kranish also did not note that McCain voted against the Boxer amendment.
As Media Matters for America documented, the Boxer amendment "strongly condemn[ed] 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." The amendment stated of the MoveOn.org ad: "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." It also criticized Republican-backed attacks on Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) military service, as well as attacks on Vietnam veteran and former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). Fifty senators, including Obama, voted in support of the measure, while 47, including McCain, voted against. As Media Matters noted, 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 Kranish's July 21 Political Intelligence post:
Campaigning in Portland this afternoon with Senators Susan Collins Olympia Snowe, McCain pledged to end US dependence on foreign oil, saying it is a national security issue because some of the billions spent on oil ends up in the hands of terrorists.
He criticized Obama for not voting for a resolution condemning the antiwar group MoveOn.org for a newspaper ad calling the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, "General Betray Us."
And McCain continued assaulting Obama's record of not supporting the surge of additional troops to Iraq, a strategy that McCain championed and that observers say has helped drive down violence.
"I'm proud that I was right," McCain said. "....That's what judgment is all about. That's why I'm qualified to lead."
SUPPORT THE TROOPS! USA! USA!
Yep. He's getting deperate.
http://www.electionprojection.com/index.shtml
mccain is making all these claims of how we would have found ourselves in a "wider war" if we had withdrawn. it's no surprise that enough troops are going to tamp down the violence. but the fact is that all those original predictions of what a cakewalk this would be turned out wrong, as were the predictions of how it would pay for itself with iraqi oil money. the whole argument is a catch 22 with mccain and his other invasion supporters. things going bad? can't withdraw. things going "good"? can't withdraw.
we have managed to spend a trillion dollars, 4000 american lives, and run up huge obligations in the future to those wounded in this fiasco. and for what? to drive out insurgents who were not there to begin with? mccain should well know he's repeating all the rhetoric of vietnam: "the whole world will go communist if we don't stop them there". it didn't happen. in fact, those two communist buddies, vietnam and china, fought a war in 1979 after we left. the idea promoted by the neocons that iraq is going to let itself be bossed around by iran runs against history.
This is the amendment brought forward by Senator Cornyn that passed 72 - 25 that Obama voted NOT PRESENT:
(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces. (b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate-- (1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq; (2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and (3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.This is the amendment that Barbara Boxer brought that was voted down 50 -47, Obama voted Yea:
SEC. X 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.Boxer's attempt was to lump the bowelmovement.org ad in with others but not mention bowelmovement.org by name. Pretty lame and voted down in the morning session. The good guys won in the afternoon with the Cornyn amendment.
You mean good guys like this?
No wonder your hero's voted against the Boxer resolution. If they named Moveon by name, they'd also have to name a bunch of republicans like this senator. These biased right wing conservatives have such class...
Lets hope local republicans like Brent Rinehart never get elected to the senate, but hey, MoveOn is much worse. Brent mails this garbage to voters with god on his side...
redbaronemisis,
A single state senator from South Carolina!?! Pretty lame.
If you want whacked out, look instead at the mainstream of the democrat party in Seattle:
Astin’s speech was most memorable for this line: “Should Obama get the nomination I will become a massive Barack Hussein Obama supporter.”
Hussein? Eyebrows shot up. Brows furrowed. Heads turned. A friend in the audience texted me: “Hussein!?” I’m not sure what Astin was up to with that line, but someone probably should have told him that Seattle’s 43rd District is the last place in the U.S. where subliminal messaging around Obama’s middle name is likely to move Democrats toward Clinton.
Further proof of this: There was some time to kill as multiple tallies of the delegates and alternates were done, and when the time-killer of taking audience questions had run its course and the idea of teling jokes had been nixed, someone suggested doing the Pledge of Allegiance to pass the time. (Are you listening, right-wing bloggers? This is going to get good.)
At the mere mention of doing the pledge there were groans and boos. Then, when the district chair put the idea of doing the Pledge of Allegiance up to a vote, it was overwhelmingly voted down. One might more accurately say the idea of pledging allegiance to the flag (of which there was only one in the room, by the way, on some delegate’s hat) was shouted down.
Yeah, you guys just love this country!
Oops, here's the link:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/04/oh_those_43rd_district_democrats
PC,
Thanks for pointing out the differences in the Boxer and Cornyn amendments...as mmfa failed to do. They chose to equate two different bills as the same.
Cornyn specifically called for the repudiation critical comments about Petraeus and all "current" members of the armed forces. It passed with a large bipartisan vote...the only ones opposed were democrats.
Boxer called for the repudiation of any critical comments of "any" member who has "ever" served in the armed forces...including Kerry and Cleland. It failed on a straight party line vote.
Wes, PC, and POV:
Are you saying that you agree with the Cornyn amendment and not the Boxer amendment? Why? If you agree with the notion that saying negative things about military personnel is bad, why should it be limited to current troops and not veterans? That opinion seems pretty silly and partisan to me, just to protect those repugnant SBVFT and Saxby Chandless.
The logical argument would be either agreeing with the Boxer amendment or neither of them. Most of the people on this site, including me, seem pretty consistant in supporting neither of them. In Obama's case, he chose to support the logical amendment and not the parstisan one. It was Cornyn and his republican partners who acted partisan and disingenuous here.
jawill11
If that is how Obama felt, then vote against the cornyn bill. My problem was that he had the chance to vote against it, he was at the senate when the vote came up, but he picked the "not present" option so that he would not have to be on record voting for or against it.
OK, I'll grant you that point.
I'll let my questions stand for PC and Wesley.
-- In Obama's case, he chose to support the logical amendment and not the parstisan one -- jawill
No...that's exactly backwards. Obama supported the bill that was defeated on a straight partisan party line vote.
The Cornyn amendment was the one passed with large bipartisan support...75-22...the only ones voting against this amendment were democrats...and Obama's non-vote.
Sickchops11,
I believe that the people mentioned in the Boxer amendment were not active military and just about to testify before Congress. They were also only democrats, Bill Clinton originally claimed Bob Dole's injuries were to to his wounds being self-inflicted. http://www.tedellis.net/dole-article.htm
I believe the purpose of the specific bowelmovement.org ad was to demean and invalidate the present efforts of the military, ie, the surge. Remember Senator Clinton's 'willing suspension of disbelief' essentially calling him a liar, too.
The questioning of Cleland was about his voting record as a first and only term Senator. There was nothing of his accident in Vietnam or war record that was ever questioned, only that his voting record was not representative of his home state and the voters agreed. If we could not question a veteran then the left and right(!) politically could have nothing to say about McCain and where would that leave you?
When someone is in uniform, serving this country you should not question their patriotism or effort to follow orders. But this is exactly what the bowelmovement.org ad did. I also believe that the leftists like Murtha, Durban and even the comments of Kerry were more than happy to reflect the notion that military personnel should be considered failures, similar to Nazi's and setting up gulags or outright murderers before the evidence was presented and proved them wrong.
The Boxer amendment was designed to give cover for supporting Petraeus without offending the far left and other bowelmovement.org supporters. That is why it lost so handily and the Cornyn admendment was affirmed.
Youlast,
Here is the ad. You can see that the pictures of Saddam and Osama are on a separate screen from Cleland. He doesn't morph into one of them or vice versa. The ad challenges the voting record on security but in no way links, via word or picture, Cleland and those two.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFYpd0q9nE
Please view the ad and respond, sil-vous-plai!
in any case he was "visually linked" to the two of them, because the ad clearly is saying that cleland is not supporting bush against these dangerous men and lists his votes against certain amendments. and the question is so what? as this link shows it was bush who originally opposed a department of homeland security, which the democrats were in favor of. not agreeing with bush on every single aspect of how that department was set up does not mean that cleland opposed a department. that was bush. just like the report of the hart-rudmann commission on counterterrorism, a joint project set up by clinton and gingrich, and which bush promptly threw in the trash when it was issued in the early days of his administration. bush announced that cheney would run a committee on terrorism, and it never met. bush and his administration ignored counterterrorism. the record is well documented.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608150009
and you also said there was nothing of his accident in vietnam or war record that was ever questioned. b.s., ann coulter attacked him.
theysecond,
Here's what was voted on, not Coulter's statements which occurred after Cleland lost the election, I believe.
(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'';
The linkage is no different than 99% of all political ads. Boo-hoo, the Senate said na-da to the Boxer amendment.
i know what was voted on. you seemed to be saying in a more general sense that he was never attacked on his war record. coulter did that. i know it was later but she did do it.
Youlast,
Thanks for recognizing the 'distance' in the ad between Cleland the the pictures. The comments about the Homeland Security related to the requirement that all of this group's employees be able to unionize. The question at the time is which is more important, catching and killing terrorists or making nice with the AFL-CIO.
Hang in there though, the Russian judge gave you a 5.5 on technical merit. You really hit the dismount!
You may have your facts, the dems wanted to do what they do best, add buraucracy to the government. We probably could be just as effective, which has been pretty good, at stopping terrorists with FBI, NSA, CIA liaisoning with each other or lowering the 'Gerelick Wall' instituted during the Clinton years that stopped information sharing between agencies.
Wherever bin Laden is, if not already finding out no 72 virgins awaited him, he's managed a few tapes here and there asking (but not getting) the Sunni's to stop cooperating with the infidels. He matters as the face of evil but his team has been crushed in Iraq.
Question:
Why was the amendment that media matters presented the link to voted down? It seems like simple rhetoric there has to be a reason that people would vote against it.