Messiah: I was too gutless principled to vote on the “support Petraeus” resolution

posted at 5:22 pm on September 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

One of three senators to miss the vote this afternoon. Busy with campaign stuff? Nope, it was by choice:

“The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements,” Obama says. “This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq. It’s precisely this kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington’s ability to solve America’s problems. By not casting a vote, I registered my protest against this empty politics. I registered my views on the ad itself the day it appeared.

Obama goes on to say, “All of us respect the service of General Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform. The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq.”

Keep that very principled opposition to time-wasting resolutions in mind as we go forward the next week or two with the Iraq debate, knowing per the failure of Webb’s amendment last night that every last Democratic timetable measure is doomed to fail. Every last one of them will be voted on anyway, though, because it serves the Democrats’ interest to remind Americans where the GOP stands on the war. They’re practically useless, in other words, but politically useful. Just like this measure, which Obama couldn’t be bothered with.

Exit question: How can it be that on a day when Hillary chose to line up with MoveOn.org against David Petraeus, she still comes off better than Obama by virtue of the fact that she at least had the balls to go on the record? Amateurs.

Update: Here’s the latest extremely important Iraq measure that didn’t have a holy hope in hell of passing to come to the floor this afternoon. Did Obama dignify it by voting? Of course he did.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Exit question: How can it be that on a day when Hillary chose to line up with MoveOn.org against David Petraeus, she still comes off better than Obama by virtue of the fact that she at least had the balls to go on the record?

This. Woman. Has. Stones. Real. Ones.

Entelechy on September 20, 2007 at 5:26 PM

“All of us respect the service of General Petraeus …”

What, has he got MoveOn Mouse in his pocket?

Spineless crafty politician.

Dusty on September 20, 2007 at 5:28 PM

“The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements,” Obama says.

Translation: We should be concentrating on surrendering just when violence is at the lowest levels since early 2006 – not supporting our troops.

amerpundit on September 20, 2007 at 5:30 PM

How can it be that on a day when Hillary chose to line up with MoveOn.org against David Petraeus, she still comes off better than Obama by virtue of the fact that she at least had the balls to go on the record? Amateurs.

Could this nutless clown be any more of a lightweight? I’m beginning to suspect that his suit is filled with helium, instead of merely being empty.

ReubenJCogburn on September 20, 2007 at 5:32 PM

This bum is just one more example of the enemy within our borders…

JWS on September 20, 2007 at 5:32 PM

…give them a mission that is responsible…

Like unilaterally invading Pakistan?

Zach on September 20, 2007 at 5:32 PM

He was too busy arguing with the Rever-and Jack-shnmmmmm (El Rushbo reference)

Defector01 on September 20, 2007 at 5:32 PM

That awfully “White” of him.

Hening on September 20, 2007 at 5:35 PM

Obama sure comes off all wishy-washy here. You know who else is wishy-washy? White people.

Coincidence?

Enrique on September 20, 2007 at 5:36 PM

Hening on September 20, 2007 at 5:35 PM

Arrgh.

Enrique on September 20, 2007 at 5:37 PM

“This amendment was a smurf designed only to score cheap political smurfs while what we should be doing is smurfing on the deadly serious smurf we face in Iraq.

Fixed. You are welcome, Hussein.

Califemme on September 20, 2007 at 5:37 PM

Obama The Magic Chicken

SoulGlo on September 20, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Not voting to protest empty politics. Wow.

He’s smarter than us all.

World B. Free on September 20, 2007 at 5:41 PM

O-Rookie Cornyn ’08.

RushBaby on September 20, 2007 at 5:44 PM

It was gutsy to take no stand.

Where are your principles people?

omnipotent on September 20, 2007 at 5:45 PM

This bum respects the General’s service, I’m sure he equates his service to wiping his butt after using the toliet. Of course the Oprah and Spew crowds probably relate to his lame brained excuse. The fact that Shillary would not disavow this ad shows her & the other idiotic dimocraps for the creeps they truly are. They are absolutely disgusting individuals and I cannot fathom ever voting for another demicrap again.

Catie96706 on September 20, 2007 at 5:47 PM

What a gutless wonder. I guess it just matters who is doing the political game playing, huh.

d1carter on September 20, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Exit question: How can it be that on a day when Hillary chose to line up with MoveOn.org against David Petraeus, she still comes off better than Obama by virtue of the fact that she at least had the balls to go on the record?

Hiliary was using Bill’s set to go on the record.

steveegg on September 20, 2007 at 5:52 PM

if he’s too scared to vote on this bill, how can he stand up to .. yada yada yada

lorien1973 on September 20, 2007 at 5:52 PM

I should start selling “Moveon.org” kneepads.

Man, oh man, I’d be filthy rich – just from the trash in Congress.

OhEssYouCowboys on September 20, 2007 at 5:52 PM

And here I thought the honorable thing to do is to support your friends whenever they are slandered. I guess the intent of the slander matters if you have an advanced nuanced mind. Perhaps Seneca wrote that somewhere in his Morals and I missed it.

Spirit of 1776 on September 20, 2007 at 5:55 PM

He just doesn’t GET IT!!! I’m reaching the point where I almost feel sorry for the man. He’s in his own bubble.

jeanie on September 20, 2007 at 5:56 PM

I knew he lacked Malkins.

Boy, you better toughen up. The Glacier is more of a man than you will ever be.

conservnut on September 20, 2007 at 5:56 PM

He’s really no different than all gov. workless bums workless punks workless recipients of ill gotten wages. Except for all the hard working men and women who fought to kill the shamnesty bill, and all their associated people, who for the time being have turned the tide on the illegals. The rest are all a bunch on BUMS just visit the Chicagoland area in the state of ILL. They are the BEST OF THE BEST, BUMS OF ALL.

Legions on September 20, 2007 at 5:56 PM

she at least had the balls to go on the record

Nah. She has the means to prevent anyone from using this vote against her at a later date.

The Clinton Machine.

IrishEi on September 20, 2007 at 6:00 PM

But he still supports the troops right? Just not this soldier against this adversary, because he voted to support the troops when he voted for… um… uh… when he voted against uh… um…. oh yeah, nevermind.

trubble on September 20, 2007 at 6:02 PM

On leadership on the WoT, look what the Glacier, the Reaper, Obama did, not long ago. It’s quite the day today. Petraeus must be smiling.

Voting for the measure were Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Barack Obama of Illinois and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. A fourth candidate, Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., did not vote.

Entelechy on September 20, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Okay, but then why did he vote for the Boxer amendment to the anti-Moveon.org measure just 38 minutes earlier?

Nice try Barry, nice try.

Drew on September 20, 2007 at 6:04 PM

This amendment MorOn.org advertisement was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing on the deadly serious challenge we face in Iraq.

Fixed it for you Senator.

Mallard T. Drake on September 20, 2007 at 6:06 PM

Sorry AP – just saw your update.

Entelechy on September 20, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Being that Obama has the personal backing of George Soros himself, I am surprised that he too did not go on the record.

Hawkins1701 on September 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM

HRC is running over BHO. She’s wiping the floor with him. She never delivers the knockout blow but she’s wearing him down with bodyshots and footwork. He doesn’t have the endurance to go the distance and he’s too egotistical principled to throw in the towel. Watch over the next few months as HRC gives BHO a lesson in political hardball. Boom! Pow! Smack! And down goes.

Thomas the Wraith on September 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM

C O W A R D

JustTruth101 on September 20, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Not voting affirmatively to support our war commanders in the field is an act of treason. This neutered little jerk is beyond disgust.

rplat on September 20, 2007 at 6:22 PM

They’re practically useless, in other words, but politically useful. Just like this measure, which Obama couldn’t be bothered with.

That’s a bad comparison. One measure (Petraeus) is simply a resolution that if passed has no impact; it’s just a resolution. How many times have we mocked the futility of UN resolutions that accomplish nothing?

The other measure (Iraq) is legislation that could have an actual impact if passed. The fact that it has no chance of passing doesn’t make it useless in the same way that empty resolutions are useless. You may disagree with Obama that the Petraeus resolution is useless, but it’s not fair to compare it to actual legislative measures that simply don’t have any chance of passing.

tneloms on September 20, 2007 at 6:22 PM

“The focus of the United States Senate should be on ending this war, not on criticizing newspaper advertisements

That doesn’t make any sense because a few minutes before he voted in favor of a resolution condemning Republican ads.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00343

bnelson44 on September 20, 2007 at 6:22 PM

I still don’t see the point of opposing the “war”.

I hate to break it to Obama/MoveOn, but the “war” ended a few weeks after it began, unless they mean the war versus Al Queda. Opposing going into Iraq is fine and dandy but that ship has sailed.

Do they oppose it because Al Queda is attacking our troops(they want to show cowardice to our enemies)?

Or, do they oppose our policy on Iraq because they oppose the government there(ie Saddam was better). So they prefer dictatorships to free societies?

Neither sounds like honorable positions to take.

DavidM on September 20, 2007 at 6:31 PM

I hope he is a long-range Muslim Brotherhood mole, programmed by the Mohammedan world, and sent into the infidel camp to see if he could weaken the West to Islam’s infiltration.

Because if Barack is just what he claims to be, then there’s even less to him than meets the eye.

I suspect something far more corrosive that a mere power-broker.

So, may the political procology begin.

Let’s see what’s behind the b.s.

profitsbeard on September 20, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Thank goodness he’s self destructing…I would rather have Hillary than Obama…I don’t think I’m going to get Mitt/Gingrich ticket I really really want…

JustTruth101 on September 20, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Only the nutroots buy your crap Obama … see ya. Weasel

darwin on September 20, 2007 at 7:10 PM

Because if Barack is just what he claims to be, then there’s even less to him than meets the eye.

profitsbeard on September 20, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Heh. He’s the anti-Transformer.

ReubenJCogburn on September 20, 2007 at 7:14 PM

This resolution was the single most important thing that faced America right now. It was brave of the Senate to vote on it. It as cowardly of Obama to refuse to vote on this powerful, impactful resolution.

Surely, this non-vote will cause Obama to lose the Dem primary!

e-pirate on September 20, 2007 at 7:22 PM

P.O.S.

Griz on September 20, 2007 at 7:36 PM

“All of us respect the service of General Petraeus …”

What, has he got MoveOn Mouse in his pocket?

Spineless crafty politician.

Dusty on September 20, 2007 at 5:28 PM

MoveOn is currently stiffing Obama and giving its support to the Queen Moonbat. He’s getting all his contributions from real people, and so that’s who he’s trying to please right now.

But in the EXTREMELY unlikely event that Hillary gets hit by a meteor between now and the Democrat Primary, Obama wants to keep the moonbat option open. That’s why he refused to vote on the resolution.

logis on September 20, 2007 at 7:56 PM

This none vote gives Obama the cover he will need if the Iraq war continues to go against the dems. He’ll spin it what ever way suits the conditions when it becomes an issue.

csdeven on September 20, 2007 at 10:29 PM

Every time Obama opens his mouth it’s just to change feet. No wonder he’s dropping like a led zeppelin.

Frank Nitti on September 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM

The way to honor that service is is to give them a mission that responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq.”

.
There is much more in his words here…but this is one item.
- He really does NOT support our troops, only if they’re on a mission HE deems ‘responsible’….so he is a part time supporter, at best .

shooter on September 21, 2007 at 12:47 AM

What a b**th**e. This guy wants to be dictator president but can’t vote to condemn an extremist group that berates our military? How does he expect to dictate lead?

madmonkphotog on September 21, 2007 at 1:27 AM

MoveOn is currently stiffing Obama and giving its support to the Queen Moonbat. He’s getting all his contributions from real people, and so that’s who he’s trying to please right now.

Bingo. The far right and far left will see it as cowardly, while many centrists will view it as a “principled stance”. For the record, I don’t think it was cowardly. It was calculated.
Whatever, it’s all for show.

SouthernDem on September 21, 2007 at 8:17 AM

Exit question should have been:

Obama Hillary does realize that the job she’s applying for is Commander in Chief, right?

He won’t vote to take a stand, but will vote to run. He will get as much support from the military as the Hildabeast.

Tennessee Dave on September 21, 2007 at 9:24 AM

What a wimp. At least the other leftists had the nuts to say it out loud.

Jaibones on September 21, 2007 at 9:31 AM

The way to honor that service is to give them a mission that is responsible, not to vote on amendments like the Cornyn amendment while we continue to pursue the wrong policy in Iraq.

Hmmm…. I was looking at the congressional record, and it appears that Obama was not too principled to vote on the “Boxer Amendment” (also yesterday) which was:

To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the U.s. Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the U.s. Armed Forces.

Was it because the Cornyn amendment specifically mentions Petraeus? BTW, Shrillary also voted for the “Boxer” amendment, but against the Cornyn amendment. Does it matter that much whether it’s a (D) or and (R) who sponsors the bill?

Of course, you could look at this the other-way-’round too. Why wasn’t the Boxer amendment good enough for the (R)s. It was voted on first, and was defeated 51-46 (3 NVs — one of them Biden, of course). Only 3(R)s voted Yea. Could it be, maybe, that within the amendment were the following “findings?”

(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.”

Well I wonder who they could mean?

lan astaslem on September 21, 2007 at 10:58 AM

When he saw the word ‘Moveon’ in the amendment he thought they meant ‘Move On’ so he did!

Of course, the nooses in Jena were a stunt too. Hope he stays away from that one

entagor on September 21, 2007 at 1:03 PM