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

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?

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.

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.

Barack Obama explained his refusal to vote on a Senate amendment which condemned MoveOn.org’s recent hit piece on General Petraeus: “This amendment was a stunt designed only to score cheap political points while what we should be doing is focusing…..

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 .

Riehl World View

Sure the Right’s jumping on Obama for ducking the MoveOn ad vote. But this below from Stoller at "Open Left"? Obama didn’t take a vote on the Moveon condemnation, but an hour earlier he voted for the Boxer amendment.

What…

“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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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