0 votes

Why did Dr Paul vote YEA to condemn MoveOn and praise Gen. Petraeus?

I just saw the roll call from today's votes (get ready for war with Iran.... thanks Kyl-Lieberman!) and Dr Paul voted YEA to a resolution that praises Gen Petraeus and condemns MoveOn for their General Betray Us ad.

I want to know why (or if you guys have any ideas)?

The resolution is wrong on several levels:

1) MoveOn is perfectly within their right to buy an ad to say what they want (and it's perfectly within the right of the newspaper to refuse the ad)

2) General Petraeus is a mouthpiece for the White House so MoveOn wasn't just attacking. There's truth behind the ad.

So what gives? I expected RP to vote NAY especially considering point 1 above.

Ideas why?


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

thank you

Thank you Ironman for the information when things like this come up it sounds confusing so thanks for setting us straight.

"We can see with our eyes, hear with our ears and feel with our touch, but we understand with our hearts."

Well he actually reads the legislation

The house's version is

(1) recognizes the service of General David H. Petraeus, as well as all other members of the Armed Forces serving in good standing, in the defense of the United States and the personal sacrifices made by General Petraeus and his family, and other members of the Armed Forces and their families, to serve with distinction and honor;

(2) commits to judge the merits of the sworn testimony of General David H. Petraeus without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;

(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms the personal attacks made by the advocacy group MoveOn.org impugning the integrity and professionalism of General David H. Petraeus;

(4) honors all members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel serving in harm's way, as well as their families; and

(5) pledges to move forward on all policy debate regarding the war in Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to intellectual integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve.

- Claiming that someone has "Betrayed" us, that essentially they are a traitor, certainly is unfounded, and a personal attack. Also, note that this includes all other military people, so it covers soldiers that debate against the war as well - they should not be condemned.

As the personal attacks on Dr. Paul and his supporters grow, this will be a great vote to bring up again and again.

Even if you read the legislation

There is no action in there is it just retoric. This is the kind of nonsense that I would like to see end. It does nothing and is a waste of time. I wrote the Paul campaign asking for some clarification on this vote because I saw it as a clear NAY based on what I understand about Dr. Paul. I am not wavering in my support just begining to question how much of the Libertarian/Constutionalist is in there. I found the ad distasteful and I may or may not think the General is doing a good job, it does not matter! Vote on bill that actually do something.