Democrats “Betrayus” on Cornyn Amendment

Nowhere do we see “Senator” or “Representative” in front of David Petraeus’ name. General Petraeus did not get a vote on “A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq” in late 2002. As a soldier, he has merely carried out the lawful orders he received from our civilian government. The fact that Hillary Clinton voted to give him and other soldiers those orders, but has now joined in attacking his personal character, proves her unfit to direct our Armed Forces in any capacity whatsoever.

Rudyard Kipling defined the problem quite explicitly in the 19th century, and it seems that little has changed since then–at least in the Congress of the United States.

I went into a public-‘ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
  O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away”;
  But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play,
  The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
  O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins”, when the band begins to play.

“Hillary Clinton Stands with in Smearing Petraeus” contains the roll call vote on the Cornyn Amendment. Note that this is not a vote for or against the war. It is a vote to stand with a dedicated professional soldier who was defamed by (and then subjected to what could well be libel by the Daily Kos) for doing what our civilian government told him to do.

Vote Number: 344 Vote Date: September 20, 2007, 12:36 PM

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

NAYs —25 Voted to support and its smear of General Petraeus. Those who voted to send General Petraeus and hundreds of thousands of other men and women in uniform to Iraq in the first place (H.J.Res. 114) are so noted.

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY) H.J.Res. 114 AYE
Dodd (D-CT) H.J.Res. 114 AYE
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA) H.J.Res. 114 AYE
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA) H.J.Res. 114 AYE
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV) H.J.Res. 114 AYE
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY) H.J.Res. 114 AYE
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting – 3
Biden (D-DE) H.J.Res. 114 AYE
Cantwell (D-WA) H.J.Res. 114 AYE
Obama (D-IL) (refused to dignify the Cornyn measure by voting on it)

Let’s take a good look at this. In October 2002, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and the other named Democrats voted FOR “A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.” Now that they have buyers’ regrets about the war for which they voted, however, they are standing behind and its defamatory advertisement that calls a distinguished Army officer “General Betrayus” while accusing him of “cooking the books for the White House.”

Even a McDonald’s manager knows that you don’t tell an employee to do something, and then blame him when your own instructions result in a bad outcome. This is, however, exactly what Clinton, Kerry, Dodd, Reid, and Schumer have done, thus showing their total lack of fitness to hold any position whatsoever of public trust or responsibility. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, meanwhile, bayed as loudly for Saddam Hussein’s blood as anyone in the Bush Administration. Both clamored for war, but now that the war they wanted has not gone as smoothly as expected, they look for anyone to blame but themselves. Someone who is totally incapable of taking responsibility for their own choices does not belong in any position of authority.

John Kerry, 23 February 1998: “Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.”

# Hillary Rodham Clinton, Floor Speech of 10 October 2002 (from her own Senate Web site): “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.” (and she didn’t even take this off her Web site before joining MoveOn’s attack on General Petraeus).

Right. In 1998 and 2002, it was “Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so,” and “He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.” In 2007, Hillary Clinton said that General Petraeus’ testimony to Congress required “willing suspension of disbelief.” John Kerry, meanwhile, was against’s advertisement–he said it was “over the top”–before he voted to support it.
 If there are any further doubts about John Kerry’s and Hillary Clinton’sl lack of character and integrity, we remind our readers that Hillary Clinton posed arm in arm with the prominent racist and anti-Semite Al Sharpton. Meanwhile, this from History News Network, Tim Russert’s interview with John Kerry in 1971 (

SEN. KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.

Statement by John Kerry to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations April 23, 1971
I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command…. They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.

If Kerry was telling the truth, he is a war criminal. If he lied, he is a liar. It is quite likely that John Kerry’s statements encouraged the enemy to continue to fight instead of making peace, noting that General Vo Nguyen Giap was about ready to pack it in after the disastrous Tet Offensive.

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren’t for organizations like Kerry’s Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. – according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.

Even worse, Kerry repeated this behavior in 2005, when he made the following recruiting statement for terrorist organizations in Iraq. The enemy doubtlessly found it useful to cite a U.S. Senator’s statement that our men and women in uniform are “terrorizing” Iraqi civilians to recruit even more terrorists and suicide bombers to “defend those innocent people.” Why didn’t he just pose in an Al Qaida gun emplacement the way Jane Fonda posed in North Vietnam?

“And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs,” Kerry said Sunday. “Whether you like it or not … Iraqis should be doing that.”

Now we really wonder whether John F. Kerry still wants to stand behind an organization that uses terms like “Betray us,” noting that his own actions probably killed more American service personnel than the entire Iraq war. Rudyard Kipling knew of John Kerry’s kind, and Hillary Clinton’s kind, and he wrote them down for what they are long ago.

  For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
  But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
  An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
  An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: