I found "MoveOn" in here. Thanks TahitiNut.

[uppityperson]

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.

:shrug: I don't see MoveOn anywhere in the text of what the Senate passed.

Edited to add thank you TahitiNut for helping me find the whole text.

[mdmc]

1. were they refering to Hillary's "need to suspend reality" comment

no wonder she voted against it.

[Elidor]

2. Reading between the lines is not your strong point, eh?

Yeah, you're right. It had nothing to do with MoveOn.
:sarcasm:

[uppityperson]

3. Speaking of reading between the lines.

Guess you can't find "moveon" either and guess you don't see this as being part of the broader attempt to limit rights.

[TahitiNut]

6. No reading between the lines is needed.

<snip>

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

The only effort required is reading.

[uppityperson]

11. Drill down? Could you please show me? Sometimes Searching is the effort

I am asking nicely, politely, not snidely, I cannot find it, have clicked all over. Would you have a direct link since I am obviously so stupid, obviously can't read ("the only effort required is reading.") but just can't find it. Thank you for your kind consideration.

[TahitiNut]

13. See my post #12 below.

EVERY search for the text of legislation follws the same process... and the links are dynamic, so they can't be reused by others. They're session-dependent.

[uppityperson]

15. I don't know what "dynamic" means, haven't done this before

thank you, I did what you did below, thank you. Yes, I am dumb sometimes, ignorant of how to find things and appreciate the help.

[tandot]

4. I can see how it was hard for some Dems to vote against that

Republicans will spout their "Democrats are not supporting the troops" talking points and the media will just repeat them.

Clinton voted against it. Just wait and see how they'll spin that.

[AndyA]

7. And when the Republicans start spouting their "not supporting the troops"

bullshit, the Dems should be smart enough to throw it back at them. With facts.

Like no raises.

No additional time at home.

No plan to win the war.

Getting killed in an illegal war.

Not having enough armoured transports.

Getting second rate or no care when they return home mutilated.

That should be enough to get started. The Dems need to learn how to fight back, and turn the spin on them with facts that can't be denied. The Republicans are the ones who aren't supporting the troops. That's a fact. The Dems just need to make sure everyone understands that, and so far they've dropped that ball.

[tandot]

24. I can't agree more. Fighting back isn't their strength.

While Republicans are scrupulous in spreading their lies on TV, Dems always seem to try to play nice.

[TahitiNut]

5. You must not have looked far enough. Are you relying on the corporate media again?

That would be silly.

SEC. 1070. SENSE OF SENATE ON GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Senate unanimously confirmed General David H. Petraeus as Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, by a vote of 81-0 on January 26, 2007.

(2) General Petraeus graduated first in his class at the United States Army Command and General Staff College.

(3) General Petraeus earned Masters of Public Administration and Doctoral degrees in international relations from Princeton University.

(4) General Petraeus has served multiple combat tours in Iraq, including command of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) during combat operations throughout the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom, which tours included both major combat operations and subsequent stability and support operations.

(5) General Petraeus supervised the development and crafting of the United States Army and Marine Corps counterinsurgency manual based in large measure on his combat experience in Iraq, scholarly study, and other professional experiences.

(6) General Petraeus has taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

(7) During his 35-year career, General Petraeus has amassed a distinguished and unvarnished record of military service to the United States as recognized by his receipt of a Defense Distinguished Service Medal, two Distinguished Service Medals, two Defense Superior Service Medals, four Legions of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal for valor, the State Department Superior Honor Award, the NATO Meritorious Service Medal, and other awards and medals.

(8) A recent attack through a full-page advertisement in the New York Times by the liberal activist group, Moveon.org, impugns the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) to reaffirm its support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces, including General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq;

(2) to strongly condemn any effort to attack the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all the members of the United States Armed Forces; and

(3) to specifically repudiate the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org.

Check out the text of the Amendment linked under vote #344 at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

[uppityperson]

8. Your link goes nowhere. I followed this link...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP2934:
And copy/pasted the text. Must you insult me?

[TahitiNut]

10. That's an idiosyncracy ot the Thomas site ... they're dynamic queries

I updated my post.

Check out the text of the Amendment referenced by vote #344 at http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_110_1.htm

The links are dynamic, so each person must "drill down" from the Senate site into Thomas.

... and I DIDN'T "insult" you.

[uppityperson]

9. I found this, where is "text", seriously, have clicked everywhere

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SP02934:

[TahitiNut]

12. OK ... step-by-step ...

On the list of Senate votes, adjacent to Vote #344, click on the link at "S.Amdt. 2934" and that'll take you to a Thams page.

On that page, click on the link at "TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED: CR S11770" and that'll take you to a columnar listing (from the Congressional Record, I think) and click on the link labeled "Page: S11770" and you'll get to a page in the Congressional Record where Senator Cornyn inserted the text of the amendment.

Just scroll down until you read "SA 2934. Mr. CORNYN proposed an amendment to amendment ..." and the text of the amendment follows that.



This is the 'normal' way such information must be located. All the links are dynamic and depend on the query context of the individual session.

That's why I posted it VERBATIM in my post.

[uppityperson]

14. Thank you very much, found it and there MoveOn is. thank you for helping me find it.

I don't understand jargon. Thank you for breaking it down. Seriously, I couldn't find it. OK, I'm an elderly, well middle aged female who came to computers fighting and kicking and am not a technonerd. Thank you for showing me how to find it since I have looked and clicked and no, didn't rely on MSM since I don't watch them. Thank you.

[TahitiNut]

20. I understand. I find it too "techy," too - and I'm a long-time-IT-nerd.

It's a nuisance every time we discuss the actual text of legislation, since people must either depend on another's citation or traverse the idiocycratic Thomas links for themselves.

[uppityperson]

21. Yrs back had a paper copy of the whole Roe v Wade thing.

The text, the opinions, etc. It opened my eyes to how the Supreme Court actually works. Seems like having full text of bills, amendments, etc, should be more easily found. I wonder if my Senator (murray, not cantwell) has links on her page. Off to check.

[Rex]

17. Wow, just wow.

Could Moveon get anymore free publicity? Evidently, when you leave things to Repukes - they can! So what does DU have to do to get a free shot in the history books?

[tekisui]

23. That's how I see it. The issue of Petrayus' credibility is still front

and center. That was a highly efficient use of $65,000. And people have been sending them more money the farther it goes.

[originalpckelly]

16. Oh that's crap, you and I both know what it's about.

And quite frankly, I support that damn thing. It's the right thing to do, no political operation should be so viciously criticizing a general.

[truebrit71]

18. You're joking right? They shouldn't have criticized Gen Betrayus?

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

19. crap that I couldn't find "MoveOn"? Whatever.

Edited to add, and a general should not be criticized? Seriously? Did you read the ad itself?

[TahitiNut]

22. Since when is it the legitimate role of the Senate to scold The People in exercising ...

... their right to Free Speech and Freedom of the Press? The Senate is WAYYYY overstepping their representative role as public servants in a democracy ... and doing so in an overtly partisan POLTIICAL fashion. Where were they when the Swiftboat folks were LYING???

This is NOT the legitimate role of the Senate! Besides, the military is part of the Executive Branch! The military is GOVERNMENT ... and the People have an inalienable right to criticize our own government.

To the Senate I say: "Shut The Fuck Up and SERVE the People, not the powerful!!"