Our government is at war with us. Today we watched the Senate declare

[Skidmore]

war on us at citizens and our right to dissent and criticize the actions of our government. It has been well past time to clean the houses of government of corruption. It is time to show incumbents who participate in such activities the door. They have no place in governance in a democratic society. They want to fight the people? I'm game. No incumbent who sees the people as the enemy and who will not do the will of the people deserves their office.

[hobbit709]

1. Damn right!

[truedelphi]

137. Double Damn Right

This is the same Senate that is going to be told by the Corporate Interests sometime in the next nine months that internet "neutrality" is a concept that has outlived its uses.

And they may well bolster the argument be saying that if net neutrality is left unprotected than those unruly hecklers (Like those of us on DU and YouTube) who make fun of Patriots like Bush and Petraues will no longer have a venue to use to bring down the Establishment.

[FREEWILL56]

163. It well could fall victom to them as being

a threat to national security. We do threaten their stronghold on our government that they highjacked. Who needs enemies like Osama when we've got worse here. Osama isn't doing much against us right now because he knows bush and the republicons are doing so much better without Osama needing to risk himself or his people.

[aggiesal]

184. The same Senate that did nothing, ...

to the Swift boaters who attacked Kerry during the campaign.

Swift boaters lied.
MoveOn tells the truth.

Doesn't make sense to me.

[monmouth]

2. This includes democrats, they make me ill...eom

[KaptBunnyPants]

98. Damn straight it does. Nobody had to vote for it.

Red state Dems could have skipped the vote, if they were that concerned about political fallout. Not that there would have been, nobody who hates moveon that much would have voted for a Democrat anyway.

[Sequoia]

182. They're all a bunch of namby pamby roll over yellow bellied cowards.

Spineless, good lord I could list a page's worth of adjectives to describe this stupid vote. IDIOTS !!!

[rateyes]

3. You said it! Damn straight.

[rubberducky]

4. totally 100% agree!

We need to totally clean house. I cannot believe how goddam cowed these dems are.

[Solly Mack]

5. I'll recommend this

[TwilightGardener]

6. That's bullshit. They're not hampering free speech--just distancing

themselves from MoveOn. MoveOn can still do whatever it wants, short of slander. Don't go overboard.

[malaise]

9. Dems caved in

Honesty please.

[Freddie Stubbs]

65. What makes you believe that they 'caved' rather than voting their true beliefs?

:shrug:

[fooj]

105. Are you saying that Democrats TRULY believe that FREE SPEECH is a bad thing?

I don't buy it. Thankfully, it doesn't seem as if the American public buy it, either.

A liar is a liar. A pawn is a pawn. It doesn't matter what party they are affiliated with.

[Freddie Stubbs]

116. The amendment did not infringe on anyone's free speech

It simply criticized an ad.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

119. Why is this being stretched from a vote of disapproval to some kind of prohibition?

Moreover, ALL THE REPUBLICANS (of course) and SOME OF THE DEMOCRATS disapproved. However, NONE PROHIBITED MOVEON FROM RUNNING ADDITIONAL ADS JUST LIKE THE "BETRAY US" ONE.

Lastly, MoveOn has just moved a humonguous notch further in political influence as a result of its assertive and impactful stand, and the reactionary repukicons', most affected, ridiculously dramatic response.

I understand all the emoting. However, perspective would be helpful in weighing how much emotional energy to spend on this issue.

Also, I'm rather surprised at the black and white assertions in your post i.e. "a liar is a liar,...a pawn is a pawn,..." I thought being progressive meant a willingness to at least TRY to grasp the complexities of the human condition including the intricacies of our present political state, suck as much as it does.
:shrug:

[SkyIsGrey]

127. Speak loudly now..

Or be held silent forever.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

130. Who made that rule? Since when is "TACT" or "REASON" a bad thing?

Pfft! EITHER,...or,..."be held silent forever".

silliness,....on purpose?

If ANYONE manipulates your emotional expenditures,...

Bah! Nevermind. For some reason, I doubt any intention of having a conversation about this subject is an objective.

[robinlynne]

141. I haven't seen a recent vote of disapproval of the corruption going on in this country,

or the murders in Iraq, or the big companies trying to take people's land in new orleans, or the ELECTION FRAUD in our country, or the lack of civil liberties, or even of the US interfering in mexico's election.
So yes it is a big deal, when our congress votes to condemn the truth.

[EnviroBat]

176. Exactly! To me this is more of that testing the waters tactic,

that has been slowly undermining our Constitution for years now. First they pass a censure resolution, next they start trying to prosecute. Maybe they go after the ISP and threaten them with asset confiscation if they allow MoveOn to operate their site.

Just go about your business, nothing to see here, just groups a people being forced to board a train, doesn't concern you...

[dickbearton]

114. That vote should never have come to the floor.

[JDPriestly]

155. The resolution was not about Move-On or Betrayus or the troops.

It was about forcing Democratic senators to distance themselves and divide themselves from the Democratic base and independent voters who support Move-On. Move-On is a grass roots organization. The Senate is D.C. beltway. The Republicans brought this resolution to force Democrats to show their true colors. Many of the Democrats fell for the ploy lock stock and barrel. They are idiotic fools, and I do not name-call lightly or often. This was just plain stupid. They should have not voted at all. The resolution was a juvenile trick, and they should have ignored it. They could simply have explained that they did not feel that the Senate was the right place to hold the vote.

The senators that fell for this trick have fallen very low in my esteem.

What should we do? Give money to Move-On but not to the DLCC, not to the groups that support congressional campaigns. Give directly to campaigns for people you support, but not to those official organizations that support these fools in Congress. Let them appeal as individuals to us for their votes and support. They have forgotten who elects them.

[sybylla]

172. If it's honesty you want, then it's "22 Dems Caved"

You're doing a terrible disservice to the Dems who stood strong by lumping them in with the others when instead they clearly deserve to be called out for our support for doing so.

It's such a bad habit to focus only on the negative. Perhaps if those who do the right thing are swathed in public support for it, more of the right thing will happen.

[Skidmore]

11. They are setting as part of the national record a condemnation of

public dissent. It is an amendment in the Senate. It has the weight of law and creates precedent regardless of its intent.

[TwilightGardener]

20. It doesn't have the weight of law. It does absolutely nothing. A political maneuver only.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

57. Which is why there was NO REASON ON EARTH to vote for it

:banghead:

It's just the Republicans pulling their bully-boy tactics, and half the Democrats couldn't even stand up for the Bill of Rights.

[TwilightGardener]

71. There's no bill of rights issues here--no law was changed. Just political jockeying.

[FREEWILL56]

164. Funny isn't it that when the swiftboaters were doing their deeds

against John Kerry that those pukes didn't give a f#ck. Up is down, back is forward, evil is good, and all we need is the dipwad to hit the button to make it complete. I heard the decider whining about this and how moveon is supposed to not be supporting the troops for believing that Petraeus is biased enough to be against the people by lying in a favorable fashion that benefits king george. Boohoo I might just tell daddy (elder bush) on you guys.
:cry: :cry: :cry: :puke: :wtf:
Yes, some dems need to grow a pair, including Pelosi, but you need a straight thinking mind firstly and that seems to be absent when exposed to bush and bull disease.

[RaleighNCDUer]

125. If it means nothing, the why did they do it?

Is that what they are there for? To go to great lengths to do nothing?

And people here wonder why congress has a 19% approval rating.

[The Count]

13. distancing from the opinion 65% of population holds. As for Moveon being free

it's just a matter of time. this is a very sinister moment in history - even if you fail to grasp it. Senate is controlling popular opinion now.

[Kelly Rupert]

19. That's just incorrect. According to Gallup, 61% of people approve of Petraeus.

The man is not the mission.

[TwilightGardener]

Thank you for the fact check. We sometimes project our own views

on the rest of the country here, I notice.

[PA Democrat]

96. 53% of American do not trust Petraeus report.

Two different polls. Same results.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Do Americans trust the top U.S. military commander in Iraq to report what's really going on without making the situation sound better than it is?

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll last month, Americans were asked that very question. Fifty-three percent said they did not trust Gen. David Petraeus' report.

A USA Today-Gallup poll asked the public again this month whether they thought Petraeus' report would be independent and objective. Again, 53 percent did not.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/10/surge.poll/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

[RaleighNCDUer]

128. If they approve, it is because they are being lied to!

Is that so hard to get?

"The surge is working."

But the success was in Anbar province, where there was no surge. In fact, as I understand it, troops were pulled FROM Anbar province to bolster the surge in Bagdhad - meaning there was improvement when we moved troops OUT of the area, not INTO the area.

But who's talking about THAT?

ON EDIT: Not to mention that the surge goes against what Patraeus himself published as a means of fighting an insurgency. He is acting in a way contrary to his own published tactics, and lying about the results.

[FREEWILL56]

166. And back when we first invaded Iraq

it was about 60%(correct my rough recollection) that believed that Saddam was responcible for 9-11. Hell, it may have been more, but I never bought that bullcrap. How did I know it wasn't Saddam you say? It's so simple, because the nationalities of the hijackers were given and not one Iraqi was involved, but there were plenty from Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia was home to Osama and bush is buddies with the Saudis so by bush's own definition, bush is a terrorist because he does have ties and that's 100% more than Saddam had.
Given this poll is so favorable to Petraeus you figure how could it be wrong? and I just showed you how. With so many lies floating around from the r cons, why do you believe the 61%?

[dickbearton]

120. The Corrupt Republicans...

And some Democrats are marching right out of Hitler's Nazi
Germany.

[Cha]

148. I hope it comes back to

embarrass those who voted for it! Is that asking too much?

[OzarkDem]

25. They distance themselves from everything

except the GOP.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. The government has no business censoring journalism.

Same on congress and shame on their semi-literate apologists.

[TwilightGardener]

51. Who's censoring? Where is the law they passed that censors? Name it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

55. Cornyn, this amendment.

They passed an amendment, resolution, whatever censoring journalism. They ought to be ashamed, and frankly so should you.

[TwilightGardener]

66. Do you mean "censure" or "censor"--two different concepts. YOU

should be ashamed of your lack of vocabulary.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

72. Same roots.

And in this context they add up to the same thing.

Altough to tell you the truth, I'd rather be the guy who screws up vocabulary, then some pissant who doesn't give a shit about the first amendment.

[TwilightGardener]

79. LOL! You really are clueless. First amendment is still there. MoveOn

can still say what it wants, under the Constitution. But thanks for stretching the meaning of a meaningless political bullshit vote into a Constitutional threat.

[LittleClarkie]

151. Here ya go:

cen·sure:
–noun
1. strong or vehement expression of disapproval: The newspapers were unanimous in their censure of the tax proposal.
2. an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.
–verb (used with object)
3. to criticize or reproach in a harsh or vehement manner: She is more to be pitied than censured.
–verb (used without object)
4. to give censure, adverse criticism, disapproval, or blame.

They have a right to disagree, and express that disagreement, with Moveon.org, don't they? It's just free speech traveling the other direction. It does work both ways, after all.

[Cybergata]

126. And shame on you for picking on someone's spelling.

The English languge has ridiculous spellings as it is. Think of debt and colonel. Picking on someone's spelling doesn't have a place in debate IMHO.

[Thothmes]

168. Damn those Normans

[Cybergata]

188. The French spelled it coronel.

The Latin version was columna. I doubt the had an r sound when they said it. How did we end up with the French pronunciation and the Italian spelling (colonnello) in English. See, for those of us who are spelling challenged, the English language is a mine field.

I love reading old document written before Webster came up with the idea of a unified American Spelling. People spelled words they way they sound. There were none of those deadly silent letters or invisible Rs.

[Occulus]

60. This could make it harder for MoveOn to get a similar ad placed.

That is the magic backdoor into censorshipville. They don't need to legislate the censorship when their media organs will do it for them.

I will be pleasantly surprised if MoveOn manages to place a similar ad. I don't think it will be allowed from this point forward.

[TwilightGardener]

67. They just gotta scrape up the money. Green stuff will buy them any ad space they want.

[Virginia Dare]

80. This will do wonders for Moveon's fundraising..

I guarantee many of the people here who are falling all over themselves with outrage will pull out their wallets. Nothing will motivate people more than anger. Couldn't have worked out better for Moveon.

[Kelly Rupert]

69. And how would that happen?

You believe the Washington Post or NY Times won't run an ad that might be criticized by someone? Hell no; they don't care, so long as the money's good. This wasn't condemning the Times for running it.

[iaviate1]

150. Really? They were censored at the Superbowl too.

Even if they did cough up the money. I'm certain there are more examples of similar censorship.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4114703/

http://civic.moveon.org/cbs//

[TankLV]

169. BULLSHIT - we have the money all the time lately - but they find some excuse to NOT run them...

Do a little fact checking before you spew bullshit and look like an idiot for all to see...

[alstephenson]

106. Good point, kgfnally. De facto censorship.

[TahitiNut]

101. The Senate doesn't know its place. It's SUBORDINATE to the People ...

... and not some Nanny entitled or authorized to scold (or "CONDEMN"!) the People while they LEGALLY exercise Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press ... and do that scolding using the taxpayer's dime!

I would say the SAME thing if they "CONDEMNED" the Swiftboaters. It's NOT the place of the Senate to "CONDEMN" the People or any legal, law-abiding political organization OF THE PEOPLE!

They are public SERVANTS ... in SERVICE to the public. It's just not their job to attack citizens for criticisms of a part of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH (the military). The posturing and pretense is appalling.

[RaleighNCDUer]

124. Bullshit.

Did Moveon ever claim to be speaking for anyone but themselves? Why would congress have to "distance themselves" from something that was never in their purview in the first place?

By taking a move to directly condemn the free speech of citizens they act as a brake on dissent. That is NOT THEIR FUCKING JOB.

[treestar]

175. They don't need a resolution about it, though

They all have access to the press. Using the government function itself is wrong.

[rucky]

7. TIME TO DONATE

www.moveon.org

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/donate.html

[PA Democrat]

17. If your Senator voted for the condemnation be sure to let them know

that you are making a donation to Move On in protest to their lack of respect for free speech.

[ljm2002]

56. Yes!

This is one thing we can do that is very direct: donate to Moveon because of the Senate vote. Let Moveon and your senators know that you made a donation, and let them know why you chose to donate at this time. I just donated $100 to Moveon and will let my senators and Moveon know why.

I'd love to hear that Moveon got a huge bump in donations.

The Republics have won elections by playing to their base. The Democrats on the other hand, always desert their base. And I for one am sick to death of them. They're so a-skeered of the Republics and the smears they might be subjected to, that they forgot to be a-skeered of the people who elected them in the first place.

If the Senate wants to fight with its own constituents -- Bring.It.On.

Utter, sniveling cowards.

Added on edit:

Okay, I have just emailed Moveon.org as well as Senators Reid and Ensign to let them know that I donated, and why.

[Trisket-Bisket]

8. Um, what are you talking about?

Please explain.

[The Count]

14. Turn C-Span on.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. Cube-rats cannot.

Please.

[The Count]

44. Senate voted to condemn Moveon ad - as a personal attack on St Betrayus

They didn't have enough votes to condemn all personal attacks on war veterans/troops - Boxer amendment.

[RaleighNCDUer]

131. Thanks. nt

[hfojvt]

22. somebody had too much hyperbole for breakfast

I guess some in the Senate voted to 'betray us' and that proves they're all just a deck of cards.

Cards labeled 'wimp', 'traitor', 'corporofascist', 'useless'.

Unlike Horton, they cannot hear 'the little people'

[PA Democrat]

10. I am going to check to see how my Senators voted. I will make a donation to Move On

in protest of their votes against free speech and then send them a copy of the receipt with a note that this donation to Move On was made in lieu of a donation to their campaigns due to their lack of respect for the Constitution. I hate what's happening to our country.

[mlevans]

185. PA Democrat wrote: I am going to check to see how my Senators voted.

PA Democrat, our guys voted for it, I'm sorry to say. Both Specter AND Casey.

[OzarkDem]

12. Time to run for office

Challenge these morons for their seats in the next primary. Run as a Dem and let them know they'll be thrown out of office for not supporting our country.

They're now voting with the 28% group, they won't be hard to defeat.

[babylonsister]

15. You're right. Rec'd. nt

[Kelly Rupert]

16. No offense, but that's fucking bullshit.

They have done nothing to "declare war" on you, and have not infringed on your right to dissent. They criticized a sort-of-embarrassing political ad. That's. It.

Calm down. Take deep breaths.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Kelly Rupert]

27. You might want to calm down too.

I haven't defended the DLC at all here. Congress criticized an controversial advertisement that was not representative of their opinion on Gen. Petraeus. They have not declared war on anything. That's not apologetics, that's simply reality.

[OzarkDem]

30. I'm very calm

believe me. We've been listening to this same line of bull from Dem leaders in Congress for the last seven years. You've got the majority in Congress now, but you're still selling the same old line of bs.

Peddle it elsewhere, its time to take our party back.

[Kelly Rupert]

36. I've got the majority? Sweet.

I'ma go pass some bills now, bitch! Woo!

Oh, wait. Wait, never mind. I see what's going on. You're a totally-binary person. I get it.

BUSH=BAD.
PETRAEUS=BUSH=BAD
MOVEON≠BUSH≠BAD=GOOD
CONGRESS≠MOVEON≠GOOD=BAD
OP≠CONGRESS=MOVEON=GOOD
KELLYRUPERT≠OP=CONGRESS.

Haha. Poor guy. No, I'm not Congress. I don't even support Congress. I just think the OP is ridiculous hyperbole.

[Zodiak]

35. Actually the word was not criticize

but "condemn".

Big difference, but I realize that it doesn't serve the party well to tell us that we just swallowed a shit sandwich, so your just adding a little seasoning to make it go down better.

I am not buying it.

And I am a member of moveon.

[Kelly Rupert]

40. It's interesting

how telling people "calm down, they have not declared war on you" makes everyone immediately act like you're some sort of paid spokesman for the DLC.

[Zodiak]

50. It is interesting how I never mentioned the DLC

How about addressing what I actually said?

But I did accuse you of being an apologist who is trying to spin a condemnation into a lite-sounding criticism.

People are pissed; let them be pissed. Mitigating the damage to the party only sets us up for betrayal #336748724874872.

[ljm2002]

Right, and the Democrats could not muster enough votes...

...to get their own amendment passed, condemning the Swift-Boat tactics employed by Republic political thugs; then out of fear they might be smeared by the MINORITY PARTY, they go ahead and vote for the Republic's amendment anyway.

Losers. And if we continue to enable them, then we are losers too.

[EV_Ares]

140. I think the dems such as John Tester who got over $300,000 from

Move.ON should return the money if he thinks they are so embarrasing. Did the republicans vote with the dems when Kerry got Swift Boated. On top of all of this Fox is behind a lot of the attacks on MoveOn.

The cowardly dems who voted against MoveOn are so spineless it is unbelievable.

[Individualist]

63. Thank you!

:applause: :thumbsup:

[TwilightGardener]

24. Agreed.

[OzarkDem]

31. Same to you

Seven years you guys have been peddling the same old bs - excuses, excuses.

Time's up. You can't lead, you don't know how, you are incapable.

Its time to clean out the Dem stables and get some new people in who do know how to lead.

[Changenow]

26. The ad was truthful

if the Democrats were embarrassed by it they should change parties.

[Kelly Rupert]

28. Belief that a general is a traitor is not a prerequisite

for admission to the Democratic party. Were it so, the Senate would be about...oh, 100R, 0D (Even those who refused to criticize it still weren't outright agreeing, "Yes, Gen. Petraeus is committing treason.) If that's what you want, agitate for that, I suppose.

[OzarkDem]

34. So join the GOP

I'm sure there are many people there you agree with. In the meantime, tell your boss to start packing.

[Justitia]

39. "Traitor"? Please post where the MoveOn ad called Petraeus a "traitor". -eom

[Kelly Rupert]

42. In the headline?

That would be what "General Betray Us" means, you know.

[Justitia]

43. No, that's YOUR insane leap of logic. Speak for yourself, don't put RW talking points in our mouth.

[Kelly Rupert]

52. Oh, you are *really* reaching now.

Traitor. n. One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust.
http://www.answers.com/traitor&r=67

If you're going to defend the ad, stand behind it. Don't try to spin it.

[Justitia]

70. No one called Gen P a "traitor" but you. Why do you use loaded words like that? -eom

[Kelly Rupert]

83. Because that is the word for a person who betrays.

Why aren't you standing behind the ad? Show some spine.

[Justitia]

84. I fully stand behind the ad. Did the ad use the RW loaded word "traitor"? Or is that just you? nt

[Kelly Rupert]

86. Stop being duplicitous.

The ad claimed Petraeus betrays.
A traitor is a "person who betrays." That is the only definition for the word in the dictionary.

This is like the following conversation:
A: "Tom murdered his wife."
B: "You just called him a murderer!"
A: "Murderer? Why are you using that loaded word?"

[Justitia]

89. Stop using your own fucked up interpretations as items of fact.

Don't claim to speak for anyone but yourself.

YOU don't speak for me, so don't ascribe your RW way of thinking to my (or anyone else's) purposes.

[Kelly Rupert]

90. Apparently the dictionary is now "fucked up interpretation."

I don't like books either. No heart.

[Justitia]

91. You don't get to LIE about what words were used in the ad. Do you know what LIAR means? -eom

[Kelly Rupert]

93. I never lied.

I did not say "the word traitor was used in the ad." I said "the ad called Petraeus a traitor," which it did, in the same way that saying "Bob murdered a guy" is saying "Bob is a murderer."

There is only one definition of traitor. It is "person who betrays." The ad said Petraeus betrayed. Therefore it said he was a traitor. Where is the disconnect here?

[Justitia]

94. So, MoveOn never used the word "traitor". Thanks for the clarification. -eom

[Kelly Rupert]

95. If there was ever any confusion, it was in your mind.

Perhaps you should try to avoid putting words in my mouth before you accuse me of the same.

[TankLV]

170. You have, you do, you are...

No matter how much you protest, WE can see thru your bullshit...

[frylock]

146. define: betray

fail: disappoint, prove undependable to; abandon, forsake

http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+betray&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGIH

[RaleighNCDUer]

135. Isn't that called a false syllogism?

A traitor is a person who betrays, therefore, everyone who betrays is a traitor.

You don't see the flaw in that?

[RaleighNCDUer]

133. Oh, it's not just him.

Hannity used it, too.

[JDPriestly]

157. A traitor is one who betrays

But not all betrayers are traitors.

You can be a betrayer without being a traitor. But if you are a traitor you are also a betrayer.

A traitor is one category of people who betray.

Remember, you can betray a secret. You can betray your feelings. You can betray your cause inadvertently as well as purposely.

You think like a right-winger. Sorry, but you do.

[Occulus]

73. You want to play semantic games?

Oh, fine. Let's define the word betray, which is the word ACTUALLY used by MoveOn.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:betray&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

# reveal unintentionally; "Her smile betrayed her true feelings"
# deliver to an enemy by treachery; "Judas sold Jesus"; "The spy betrayed his country"
# fail: disappoint, prove undependable to; abandon, forsake; "His sense of smell failed him this time"; "His strength finally failed him"; "His children failed him in the crisis"
# cheat on: be sexually unfaithful to one's partner in marriage; "She cheats on her husband"; "Might her husband be wandering?"
# denounce: give away information about somebody; "He told on his classmate who had cheated on the exam"
# deceive: cause someone to believe an untruth; "The insurance company deceived me when they told me they were covering my house"

My, my, my. Looks like there are a whole lot of ways in which the word "betray" could be meant. I wonder how many of these fit MoveOn's actual accusations...

Oh, and, just so you don't piss and moan about definition #2, above, I'll also include those at dictionary.com:

1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8. to seduce and desert.

So, again, apart from betrayal of one's country as an act of treason, we also have many other equally legitimate definitions of the word betray, many of which could easily apply to General "Betrayus" (which his own men were calling him as far back as 2003, don't ya know).

I hope I'm never as publicly, definitively wrong as you just were.

[Kelly Rupert]

78. Okay, that's hilarious.

Which of these could apply?


# reveal unintentionally; "Her smile betrayed her true feelings"
"General Petraeus is revealing the true situation about Iraq! Boo!"

# deliver to an enemy by treachery; "Judas sold Jesus"; "The spy betrayed his country"
Appropriate to the situation. Takes "traitor."

# fail: disappoint, prove undependable to; abandon, forsake; "His sense of smell failed him this time"; "His strength
finally failed him"; "His children failed him in the crisis"
That word is generally used with inanimates, and is used as a metaphorical sense of the above. Moreover, it also takes "traitor," as in "His sense of smell turned traitor, and misled him."

# cheat on: be sexually unfaithful to one's partner in marriage; "She cheats on her husband"; "Might her husband be wandering?"
Yes, clearly this is the sense MoveOn intended :eyes:

# denounce: give away information about somebody; "He told on his classmate who had cheated on the exam"
Petraeus was not giving away embarrassing information about us.

# deceive: cause someone to believe an untruth; "The insurance company deceived me when they told me they were covering my house"
Appropriate. Also takes "traitor."


Sorry to say, you just were as wrong as you thought I was.

[alstephenson]

109. Thanks again, kgfnally.

Great posts. You really know how to hit the nail on the head.

[RaleighNCDUer]

134. I think #7 is particularly apt. nt

[alstephenson]

108. So he's a betrayer of TRUST, not of country. No one said he was a traitor to his country. eom

[robinlynne]

142. He is the one who sat next to Powell and declared that Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destructi

He created those stupid charts showing the labs filled with nerve gas, which never existed. He is responsible for over thousands of deaths. How much more serious can it get than that?

[JDPriestly]

158. He lies and has lied. He is betraying the trust of the American people.

He is lying about the situation in Iraq. That is a betrayal of his duty and a betrayal of the American people. Time will tell whether his betrayal rises to the level of that of a traitor. Personally I think that it is a betrayal of our country to remain in Iraq -- to waste our precious resources on that war -- that is the act of traitors as far as I am concerned. To call for the unnecessary and unjustified deaths of our soldiers, that is a betrayal of the United States and of these men and women. That is my personal opinion. Time will tell whether a majority of Americans and historians will agree with me.

[The Count]

46. That's a name given to him by generals, soldiers - before Moveon - condemn THEM too!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1843316&mesg_id=1843316

[Kelly Rupert]

54. Tell Congress to do that, not me.

I'm not condemning anything.

[Zodiak]

68. Nope....just apologizing

"but they really are on our side"...."moveon was really bad" (not direct quotes...just the types of excuses we see)

Moveon posed Betrayus as a question, which you left off of your quotation (the question mark). Does this ommission bespeak of an agenda? I would say yes, or at least a strong bias.

We get really tired of this shit. Half of our party treat us like they don't want us to belong.

They are going to get what they ask for.

[Kelly Rupert]

74. I said neither of those things.

I have not condemned the ad. I have not voiced any approval of Congress's actions here. I've simply said that the motivation was not a declaration of war on free speech, as the OP claimed, and addressed individual questions people have raised regarding my motivations for saying so.

Quite frankly, the ad was indeed calling Petraeus a traitor. Having a Fox-News-patented question-mark-prophylactic doesn't fool anyone, and it's pathetic to watch you trying to wriggle out of it. Personally, I think that calling Petraeus a traitor is perfectly fair; he was acting politically and not professionally at that hearing. For God's sakes, man. If you're going to bash Dems for not standing behind that ad, try to show a little more spine on an anonymous internet forum.

[alstephenson]

107. It's a betrayal of TRUST. No one accused Betrayus of being a traitor. eom

[RaleighNCDUer]

122. Talk about hyperbole.

NOBODY IS SAYING HE COMMITTED TREASON! The only people taking that tack on it is Faux and the RW shills.

Moveon merely asked if we can believe his report. Moveon suggested that he may be lying to protect his own ass and to cover for the resident, just like all his predecessors did. And they did it with a bad pun.

So fucking what.

[Warren Stupidity]

143. Why are you repeating right wing lies?

"Belief that a general is a traitor is not a prerequisite" that is a lie and it is the rightwing talking point used to respond to the ad. Nowhere in the ad is petraeus called a traitor.

https://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

[JDPriestly]

159. The ad did not call him a traitor, but he may be one.

And the people who defend him may one day regret that they are making such a fuss about the ad. One day, they may criticize it for not having been stronger. This war is a really bad thing for our country. So was the Viet Nam war, and some of the politicians who led us into that war admitted it was a mistake. We have paid dearly for the Viet Nam war. And we will pay dearly for this one. So those who support the war may be deemed traitors at some point in the future.

[rucky]

29. Why did they do it?

what's the point, if not to intimidate?

[Kelly Rupert]

32. Because the advertisement does not come close

to representing the views most Americans hold regarding Gen. Petraeus. If they don't do this, it would be extremely easy for the Republicans to make this ad one of the centerpieces of a "The Anti-War Democrat Party Hates The Military" campaign, whereas right now the Democrats actually have strong credibility on military issues for the first time in a while.

Not everything is a conspiracy aimed at silencing you. They're just trying to avoid giving the Republicans ammunition.

[OzarkDem]

37. The military calls him Gen. Betrayus

are you saying you don't support the troops?

US troops are asking that Dems cut the funding for the Iraq War. Are you going to betray them?

Which master do you serve, your party's base, the troops and the majority of Americans? Or the GOP?

Which is it?

[Kelly Rupert]

47. A few soldiers are not the entire military.

As for the rest of your post, you've kind of gone off the deep end. The world is not binary. I don't support the war, I do support immediate withdrawal, I don't serve any "master," I vote party-line Democrat, and while I don't think the ad was a bad thing, I can see how Congress would want to distance themselves from it. They don't want the controversy. They want the White House.

[OzarkDem]

75. You must think

that I have any interest or respect for your opinion. I do not. Mindlessly repeating DLC and GOP talking points is not a sign of intelligence.

[Kelly Rupert]

81. I fail to see how that has anything to do

with anything, other than the fact that you're angry about this decision and have latched onto me as a convenient surrogate for Congress.

[rucky]

41. Nice to know that our votes are decided by...

what the opposition may say about us in the future. Sorry if I'm not cheering about it. The GOP slanders us quite liberally with name-calling on a daily basis and through hundreds of mouthpieces that pass themselves off as news-people (not paid advertisers). One group from the left says one thing and the Senate convenes.

No conspiracy, though.

[Kelly Rupert]

49. Welcome to post-CNN politics. nt

[OzarkDem]

76. Stop making excuses

tell your bosses to get off their asses and start showing some courage or just shut up.

[Kelly Rupert]

82. I've written numerous letters to my Senators and my Rep

demanding a withdrawal from Iraq. What else should I be doing?

[iaviate1]

153. Why don't you stop caring what the Repukes think?

Hasn't that lost the Dems plenty of elections? They keep shifting to the right and are now bleeding progressives. I went Green after Kerry got my vote but am back just for DK... I cannot vote for any of the top tier ones without feeling filthy. I don't trust them because they're afraid to stand for our progressive values and will turn on us just like so many other Dems did today.

[JDPriestly]

160. Actually, the purpose of the resolution was to divide the Democratic Party.

They succeeded. The Democrats were fools. They should not have voted one way or the other on this. It was a loser for Democrats no matter what they voted. And they did not need to vote. The resolution should have been ignored. By ignoring it, the Democrats would have shown what a stupid partisan ploy it was.

[creeksneakers2]

115. This is how the GOP gets away with lying

and lying makes it possible for the GOP to destroy the country. Anybody who questions GOP propaganda gets slimed. That's how they kept the truth from getting out before we went to Iraq.

[RaleighNCDUer]

132. They did not "criticize".

They officially condemned. THEY ARE THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT. They purport to speak the voice of the people. Voting to officially condemn is equivalent to the pope speaking 'ex cathedra'. If they want to criticize, call a press conference. Voting to condemn is a whole different level. It puts the whole weight of government behind their words - words which are condemning free speech.

But fuck it. It's just the first amendment.

[iaviate1]

152. The Dems criticized a major supporter of their party.

They just slapped us in the face after failing to do what we elected them to office for. And they're already loosing the progressives in the party who won't vote or will cast votes for third parties. I'm back, but just for DK. This is outrageous!

[JDPriestly]

156. Personally, I liked the ad. And I do not think that Senator Feinstein

has any business voting for a resolution condemning it. Move-On helps Democrats get elected. Move-On puts people on phones and on the streets in support of candidates for Congress. Move-On responds to what its members want. You certainly can't say that about these Democrats. They do not respond to what the members of the Democratic Party or their constituents want. They are out of touch. And they were fools to vote for this resolution -- self-righteous fools I might add. The right thing to do was to ignore the resolution. It should not have been brought. The only reason for bringing it was to play politics and divide the smug Democratic senators from us ordinary Democrats. The Democratic senators that voted for this are fools -- fools

I note that Leahy voted for this. Now I know why he isn't investigating what happened to the investigation into the anthrax attack on him. Several reasons. 1) he is a fool; 2) he is afraid of the displeasing the Republicans (unless they are Hispanic); 3) he wants to show what a "nice guy" he is, how fair he is, what a goody-goody he is, so he doesn't rock the vote. He has made a huge mistake. I am beginning to see him for what a fool he really is. Even if he did not like the ad, he was a fool to vote for a Republican partisan ploy. That goes for all the Democratic fools that voted for this -- and following their vote for the surveillance and funding for the war, the picture is becoming really clear: with a few exceptions, they are "betrayers" just like Betrayus.

[cali]

181. Ridiculous. Leahy didn't vote for this out of fear.

That's absurd. If he were so fearful, why would he have done all the anti-bush things he's done over the last few years?

Specifically, no he's not a fool.
No, his strong opposition to Gonzo is not because he's anti-hispanic.
No, he doesn't give a shit about showing what a nice guy he is, as his past actions so clearly demonstrate.
Is the JC even the right vehicle for investigating the anthrax attacks?

I don't know why he voted for it, and I'm not pleased that he did, but I could take an educated guess.

[JDPriestly]

186. The JC is the right vehicle for investigating the investigation

by the FBI. Leahy should be asking some questions in public. That is perhaps the most serious domestic political crime since Kennedy's assassination.

[treestar]

177. They could have just done that, individually, in the press

They should not be using the mechanisms of our government to condemn any of us for expressing an opinion.

It shows us what their attitude toward power is.

And it's one we should reject, even if we were to agree with them.

You're letting the frog slowly boil. It is starting to get to be time to protest to even the little things. Failing to have drawn the line is what got us this far to the right. And the right will continue to exploit the attitude that each step is only a little one and use the new foundation as a lauching pad to get their next desire.

[Changenow]

23. The Democrats assume

we don't matter. We'll see if they're right.

[TahitiNut]

33. It warmed my heart to see so many "Dems" vote with Larry Craig.

I can think of no greater demonstration of "bipartisan unity" and it motivates me to open my wallet and contribute to the amity in the Halls of COngress.


Not.

[rucky]

45. I think I saw some footsie across the aisle. n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

61. I am so damned glad I didn't have coffee in my mouth!

:rofl:

[zabet]

48. We the people

have become the enemy of the state.

[cooolandrew]

53. The logical move is to get the foot in the door. THen extract the deadwood democrats.

[rucky]

87. That would be half of them...

if this vote is the measure.

[me b zola]

58. k&r

[AuntPatsy]

59. I agree. when is enough enough?

[mmonk]

62. Pretty pathetic when a governmental body takes the time

to officially condemn free speech.

[LanternWaste]

64. Out of curiousity...

Out of curiousity...

Since you're at war with the government, are you planning on waging war and in doing so, illustrating the strength and depth of your own stated convictions, or will you simply get mad and post?


(Or maybe using the word 'war' was just a tad melodramatic?)



...just wondering, is all.

[Skidmore]

77. So I take it you feel that everything is just hunky-dory in the civil rights

arena of political life right now? No, I stand by my words. The system is corrupt and is seeking to preserve itself in a corrupt and cynical manner, including using suppression of discourse.

[rucky]

88. ever been pissed before, Spock?

[DrunkenMaster]

92. you're a scam artist, Lantern

That's the third time I've seen you pull the same stunt: you put words in someone's mouth "reducto ad absurdum" style -- taser dissenters "don't want any police officers at all" and are ready to confront them physically. Someone who uses "war" as an analogy for their anger suddenly wants to actually take up arms against their own government. I WOULD swear to Gawd you're a freaking COINTELPRO agent trying to incite someone into making violent or treasonous statements...but I don't believe in Gawd.

[LanternWaste]

99. A scam artist. I like that.

Right. Different opinions are the mark of any good intelligence office. :eyes:

It's a frikkin' question, chief. It's not putting anything in anyone's mouth. If one rejects the premise, simply say so.

On Edit: A scam artist. I like that. I'll put it up there with 'prude', 'socialist', and 'authoritarian' as my favorite pejoratives targeted at me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

136. Rather disingenuous of you.

OP said "the goverment is at war with us"; not, "we are at war with the government".

As noted above, you rephrased it to suit your own agenda, whatever that might be, then self-righteously declare your innocence. You auditioning for a slot on Faux?

[Enrique]

85. some of us are still watching the senate

They're discussing the REAL war, right this minute.

discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=389

[Virginia Dare]

97. Cheer up, Hillary Clinton is on your side!...n/t

[Imagevision]

100. The Dem's are republicans too - all authority should be questioned...!

[Sam Ervin jret]

102. I'd put any neg. action by this congress, on myself, ON MY RESUME!!!

[terminal_concept]

103. the way i see it

moveon made a bad advertising decision. I watched part of that debate. the Republicans have been milking this since it came out. There would have been better ways to say what you meant to say. I listened to senator Reid who said that the ad was not theirs and they wouldn't defend it . Why should they have to take the heat for someone elses ad? Makes perfect sense to me . He also called them out being hypocrites in regard to swiftboat ads and a few other thing I don't recall.

I realize there might be a lot of moveon.org people here but don't let that bias your judgement. The democrats handled it perfectly by using the situation to discuss Republican attack ads (that where never denounced) and then getting it out of the way . They may have sold us out on other occassions but not this one.

*sigh*

You should follow the democrats on this one. Call the Republicans to denounce what all right wing hate mongers are saying.

[RaleighNCDUer]

138. And who, exactly, asked Reid to defend it?

What he SHOULD have done is say "Moveon has no voice in congress - congress has no voice in Moveon."

It is not congress's place to either support or condemn Moveon. If you think that condemning Moveon will give repukes cover for condemning swiftboat ads you are sadly mistaken. They will never do it. Haven't you learned anything about republicans in the past 7 years?

[TankLV]

171. No - stop with your repuke spin already - the dems should have PRAISED the ad...

spineless do-nothings...

I am tired of Vichy Dems...

[The Count]

104. They just topped the Freedom Fries vote!

[cosmicdot]

144. kicking the thread here as salute to The Count

and a rec.

[Vilis Veritas]

110. Game on.

No Fear.

[baldguy]

111. Patrick Henry is dead.

Democrat turncoats helped kill him.

[bjobotts]

112. McCaskill(D-MO) votes with repubs on all main issues...So I sent $ to move on

And sent McCaskill an email stating that I am now a member of Moveon.org and sent the money I was going to donate to her campaign fund to move on instead. And everytime she continues to vote repub I will send my donations to a real democrat or to an organization unafraid to speak the truth.

I recommend everyone send $1 to move on in protest to the senate's ridiculous actions. The press would have a field day with that. Headlines will read "Senate Vote Backfires; Increases Donations to Moveon.

Hahahahahah. What a statement that the senate is not paying attention to what America is to telling them...goes along with the polls that say public is unchanged after Petraeus' Pony show.

[bjobotts]

113. Donate $1 to moveon.org...and get a good laugh at Dems who voted republican

[freebrew]

179. You too?

I went to her web-site and sent her a message about her repub voting habit.
Also sent moveon several more $.

[Sam Ervin jret]

117. The General Moved into Politics. He was FAIR GAME!!! If you can't STAND THE HEAT?

This ADMINISTRATION has done more to politicize non-political positions than any in history. It is using a General to push a political agenda which is an anathema to every military paper he has written prior to his position in Iraq. He is in a POLITICAL position right now. He knows it. He is a BIG BOY. Dare I say MAN. I feel he can handle this without any action on the part of the legislature. However, if the Republican's feel that their heroes are as paper and as thin as their logic and morality, then by all means let them rant, rave, and make fools of themselves. Meanwhile they will degrade the very person they seek to defend. The general himself. What has he been dedicating his life for? What have he and his fellow soldiers been putting their lives on the line for? The right for the Congress to pass ridiculous and pointless laws, amendments, condemnations? Apparently they think so. Did anyone have the presence of mind to ask the General if he felt that his life's work was in jeopardy more from "move-on" action or from congressional over reaction? I dare say they did not. No more than they ask us nor listen to us when making these decisions IN OUR NAME and IN OUR SERVICE.

Service. Something they should keep in mind. They SERVE. WE ARE THE DECIDER'S!!!!

[Olney Blue]

118. So now the Senate has become the ad police?

[Q3JR4]

121. The government has been at war with

we the people for some time now. Most of them have been in congress for so long that they've become disconnected from reality, and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it because people are stupid. Individual people may keep an eye on things and know what's going on in the world, but people as a group are like animals....easy to herd.

The incurious population of these United States are spoon fed by those in power and have no inclination to change that.

[bbgrunt]

123. damn straight.

[pa28]

129. It's never the "right time" to take a stand.

Nobody respects that. Even now when the curtain has been torn aside on the war, the economy and the corruption that rules Washington they can't bring themselves to stand up to the Republicans. If ever there was a time when we need to recognize the need and the right to question everything it's now and our Democrats could not even rise up for that one little principle.

I'll always be a Democrat but today is a bleak one IMO.

[robinlynne]

139. hear hear!

[ooglymoogly]

145. agreed kr

[SnowCritter]

147. Just sent the folowing to Senator Klobuchar

Dear Senator Klobuchar,

I am disappointed and saddened to see that you voted "Yea" with respect to S.A. 2934. While the ad purchased by MoveOn.org may have been "over the top", they have every right to make their feelings known. It is guaranteed to them by the First Amendment. The New York Times had every right to sell the ad space for whatever price they wished. That, too, is part of the American way. If General Petraeus feels he was wronged, he has every right to bring a law suit against MoveOn.org.

When I enlisted in the Marines over half a lifetime ago I took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." I didn't take an oath to defend just those parts I agreed with - it was an oath to protect and defend the entire document. There are those among us that would like to see parts of the Constitution expunged; they would ride roughshod over the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and would dare anyone to stop them. And as much as it pains me to say it, it is my belief that most of them are members of the Republican Party or support neo/theo-conservative values.

You too, Senator, took a very similar oath when you were sworn into office. I expect you to take that oath seriously, because I still remember the oath I took and still honor years after I left the Corps.

When I shook your hand in St. Cloud during the campaign I was hoping that I was backing a winner. You've won the election, now go win the battles.

And make us proud.

Best regards,

[KaryninMiami]

149. I will donate to MoveOn and I wrote to Senator Nelson. Shame on him.

Tell them how you feel. I did.

Senator Nelson,

Voting against MoveOn, who speak for the majority of America, was a huge mistake. Maybe my contribution or support of your reelection doesn't mean anything. Perhaps my not donating another dime to the Democratic Party (or time, or phone calls) means nothing either. After all, I am only one person. But I can assure, you that I represent millions of angry Americans, (most, but not all who vote Democratic,) who feel very betrayed. We have been lied to. We were swindled into working our butts off to turn Congress Blue-- because we trusted you to put an end to this war. We believed you would do as you promised. You didn’t. And Now you go and vote AGAINST Move.On.org for speaking the truth?

Check the blogs Senator. Direct your staff to read up on how many of us are now giving money to MoveOn.org. Lots of money. The same money that could have- would have- gone to supporting Democratic candidates. In one Democratic blog (with over 100,000 members,), many people have donated to MoveOn not once this week, but two and three times. Kind of ironic. 22 Democratic Senators, who voted against MoveOn.org, actually inspired an overnight fundraiser for them. But it’s a bittersweet victory. Because the bigger story- is the fact that it was reported this week by the BBC, that over 1 million Iraqui civilians died as a result of our illegal action and occupation. General Petraeus did betray us, although most of us were really not surprised. He is, as we all knew from the beginning, a mouth peace of the Bush administration. But, then again, voting against MoveOn sends the message that you, (and the other 22 Democratic Senators who voted as you did), are in support of that very same administration. Not in support of those of us who elected you, not in support of the men and women who are serving in this nightmare- but in support of the criminals who put us there in Iraq.

Not another dime from me, Senator Nelson. Not until you demonstrate that you represent - truly represent, the people.

[deacon]

154. I was thinking the same thing, We now have a war at home, us v. them

and they're supposed to represent us. Most all of them have broken their oath.

[liberalla]

161. To reiterate:

"No incumbent who sees the people as the enemy and who will not do the will of the people deserves their office."

That's it, in a nutshell.

If we had public funding of elections, the "will of the people" would really have a chance.

[Enthusiast]

162. I agree with liberalla.

We desperately need a functioning government, not one bought and paid for. I feel abandoned by my party. And it is no longer a matter of feeling abandoned, it a fact.

Funny, where was the outrage when Democratic war heros were attacked day after day? Where was the outrage when there were eight years of 24/7 wild allegations against Bill Clinton? If a Democrat is elected in 2008 it will start again. An entire industry of attacking pundits. Their claims won't need to be factual because after hearing this thousands of times it will be considered truth by the electorate.

[The Backlash Cometh]

165. Maybe it's time to out the Republican Congressmen who have eroded

individual rights? You see, I don't think the white man in America, is going to like it much when they realize what they've given up. They think that only dark skinned Muslims are being affected by it.

[DeSwiss]

167. K&R!!!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

173. our anthem.....pink flyodd.....

us and them

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlY-JlE5ZCo

[lame54]

174. why is obama your picture

rumor is that he was in the building but chose not to get involved

[Stewie]

178. Some people need to double their dosage

I wonder how many of those shrieking "censorship" and concocting Nazi conspiracies would be do this if the Minutemen ran an ad calling Nancy Pelosi "Nancy Bomb-Us-i" and Senate passed a resoluton criticizing that.

I swear logging on to this board makes me realize what would happen if someone picked the locks at the mental hospital.

[happygoluckytoyou]

180. IF THIS PISSES YOU OFF.... DO WHAT I DID

GO TO MOVEON.ORG.... SIGN THE PETITION.... ADD A COMMENT ABOUT HOW MUCH YOU ARE DONATING TO MOVEON THIS MONTH RATHER THAN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.... GO TO THEIR DONATION PAGE AND TOSS IN SOME $$$$

SIT BACK FOR A MONTH AND REALIZE THAT YOU HAVE BECOME PART OF THE CURE

[NoFederales]

183. Agreed; working at the grassroots level to take government back. Is

there anything immediate that can be done at the other end besides verifiable election results, campaign restrictions such as public financing, and asking current officials to commit to UNDO all of Bush's edicts?

NoFederales

[Rocknrule]

187. It's high time we reminded them they work for us!

Bush is OUR EMPLOYEE. We are not his serfs, subjects, or servants, we are his collective boss. We have every right to fire his ass.