If you look at the recent vote in the Senate condemning the below-the-belt character attack on General Petraeus by the slimy MoveOn.org prior to his Senate testimony, you learn a lot about the White House hopefuls on the left.

Senator Clinton voted against condemning the article and recognizing the factual list of the Generals accomplishments.

Senator Dodd voted against it.

Senator Obama, in a clear sign of his leadership potential, slipped out of the chamber without voting when he found out what it was about.

A few other Democratic leaders did not distinguish themselves.

Senator Kerry, still screaming about "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" evidently decided that he should be protected from testimony of eye-witnesses, but that his political opponents should rightly be the victims of childish and dishonest attacks from his supporters.  He voted no.

Senator Durbin tried to torpedo the vote with a parliamentary move.  When that didn't work, he voted no.

Why is this signficant?  Because the measure passed 72-25.  The leadership on the left was far to the left of even the other Democrats in the U.S. Senate!  Not to mention the average American who is slightly to the right of center.

These are the moments that make good commercials.  That is, unless you're the one taking MoveOn.org over military leaders.

TownHall

sharp

Today's MSNBC headline reads:

"Deaths among U.S. forcers, Iraqi civilians drops"

While this is certainly good news - and that drop was by 50% - the news in the article just keeps getting better.  It notes that U.S. and Iraqi forces killed 60 Al Qaeda fighters north of Baghdad.  Not bad for a days work. 

So here's my question.  If we are killing Al Qaeda fighters in Iraq, why would we withdraw under the premise of looking for a better place to fight them?  Remeber that Obama said he would put offensive forces in Pakistan, which brought howls of protest from Afghanistan, of course.

The article goes on to mention that leaders of both major parties, Sunni and Shiite, describe as disastrous the Democrats plan to divide the country into pieces with a loose federal government.

But what do they know, right?

I still fail to see anything but political opportunism on the left. 

No answers. No Leadership.

Nothing.

MSNBC article

sharp

Dan Rather reminds us that the bloodlust on the part of the media to attack Republicans is at a higher pitch than ever before. They're even sloppy drunk with it and willing to "fake" if they have to.

And his own career-crushing episode had faded into old liberal-denial in memory until this week when he sued CBS news over the stunningly false attacks he published against Bush in 2004, just weeks before the election.

It's a great example of why people should be forced to live in a world of multiple opinions, unlike the media and academia.  Anyone who wasn't desperate to destroy President Bush would have fired everyone in the room for even entertaining so pathetic a sham as that "faked" story.  But when no one has a different point of view, this is where you wind up.

So, according to an article from the National Review, here are the options Rather has given to CBS news.

1) Admit that they were responsible for the "faked" story and pay him $70 million

2) Prove that he was stunningly unprofessional and incompetent and determined to stonewall the press from looking into it by his unbelievably transparent assertions of validity (which, of course, he would have burst blood vessels over if it had been the Bush administration doing that).

But here's the really funny part.  In all of this, there's no current assertion of truth in the story.  Only he said-she said over who was more journalistically corrupt and/or incompetent. 

The upshot is that we'll all be reminded of the NYTimes-like dishonesty and unreliability of CBS News and it's ilk.

And that's exactly how it should be.

sharp

We're about to spend $600 million on an embassy in Iraq.  It brings to mind the comments of the Aghan President when he said that his country would have been stable now if America had spent the Iraq War money on Afghanistan instead.  The Iraq war seems to be topping $700 billion now.  That's a stunning figure.  $700 billion.  Those who've argued that we could have had national health insurance for that money have a fair argument.

Those, like me, who would say that $700 billion would have balanced the federal budget for the last three years also have a fair point.

I have supported this war from the beginning, but like Hillary rightly says, it hasn't been managed well at all.  As of the surge and the shift of Sunni loyalties, it seems to have greatly moved in the right direction with momentum against Al Qaeda (if not for America).  But the lost money and lost lives are hard to stomach.  Especially if it didn't have to be that way.

sharp

...you do things like MoveOn.org and Hillary Clinton did this week.

I join Mayor Guiliani in his comments against Senator Clinton's thinly veiled character attack.

"Willing suspension of disbelief" is a phrase that I'm sure they were proud of on her political team, but among decent people it's a grievous wrong and a sign of an empty character.

Calling someone to testify and then calling them a liar in a preemptive strike is more evidence of the Clinton character that this country rejected in 2000. It must be called what it is, rather than to allow for its success and repetition.

Does Senator Clinton's behavior remind anyone of the preemptive character attacks on those her husband allegedly sexually abused?  Apparently, this leopard hasn't changed its spots.

sharp