Mark Udall Proposes Resolution Condemning Rush Limbaugh

**Update--Michelle Malkin has much more on the phony "phony soldiers" outrage on the left, as well as the phony soldiers the left touted so many times in opposition to the war in Iraq.

Gateway Pundit offers an easy way to identify phony soldiers.

---

The phony "phony soldier" attacks on Rush Limbaugh (debunked here, here, and here) has prompted a bruised Mark Udall to propose a House resolution condemning Limbaugh and honoring the troops, most likely to atone for the sin of voting against MoveOn's Petraeus ad just last week:

JOIN AS AN ORIGINAL COSPONSOR OF A RESOLUTION
HONORING OUR ARMED FORCES AND
CONDEMNING RUSH LIMBAUGH'S ATTACK
ON "PHONY SOLDIERS"

Dear Colleague:

On September 26, 2007 the broadcaster Rush Limbaugh told a nationwide radio audience that members of the Armed Forces who have expressed disagreement with current policies of the United States regarding military activities in Iraq are "phony soldiers."

On Monday I will introduce a resolution honoring all Americans serving in the Armed Forces and condemning this unwarranted attack on the integrity and professionalism of those in the Armed Forces who choose to exercise their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding U.S. military action in Iraq.

Sincerely,

Mark Udall

Some on the left aren't buying Udall's "meaningless resolution". Section 2 of the proposed resolution:

SEC. 2. Congress--17
(1) recognizes the service of all members of the 18
Armed Forces serving in good standing and with 19
honor to defend the United States, and the personal 20
sacrifices made by them and their families; 21
(2) commits to judge the merits of the opinions 22
of members of the Armed Forces regarding the poli-23
cies of the United States, including those related to 1
military actions in Iraq, without prejudice or per-2
sonal bias, including refraining from unwarranted 3
personal attacks; 4
(3) condemns in the strongest possible terms 5
the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush 6
Limbaugh impugning the integrity and profes-7
sionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces 8
who have expressed opinions regarding military ac-9
tions in Iraq; 10
(4) honors all members of the Armed Forces 11
and civilian personnel serving in harm's way, as well 12
as their families; and 13
(5) pledges to debate any supplemental funding 14
request or any policy decisions regarding the war in 15
Iraq with the solemn respect and the commitment to 16
integrity that the sacrifices of these members of the 17
Armed Forces and civilian personnel deserve.18

Whether an act of revenge or a lame attempt to score some media attention for his Senate campaign, this feigned honoring of the troops combined with a gross misreading of Limbaugh's words in order to score political points demonstrates the type of liberal thinking that masquerades as a desire for "debate". Democrats constantly level attacks against Republicans for "politicizing" the military, but it is clear that MoveOn's "betray us" ad and Udall's proposed resolution are, in fact, more evident of the blurring of political and military considerations.

So, is this a preview of the type of "elevated debate" Udall would bring to the Senate if elected next November?

Sen. Salazar Feels Nutroots' Heat For Not Being A "MoveOn" Democrat; Update: 2010 Primary Urged

**Updated and bumped (9/28):

I think the time is NOW to start talking about finding a progressive Democrat primary candidate. Mr. Salazar can't be described as either progressive or Democrat at this point, and there is no reason to think he'll change. He's a name-only Dem. What to do, any ideas? I want to know, because I'll start working now.

Colorado is quite the home for timid, middle-of-the-road Democrats.

---

"Kiss Ass Ken"

The 2008 Senate election is still more than a year away, and already the hard left in Colorado are bailing out on "moderate" Sen. Ken Salazar.

For not being a moron MoveOn Democrat:

Salazar apparently is NOT a MoveOn Democrat.
. . .
bed wetter salazar cowers again
. . .
I feel like Salazar just kicked me in the nuts while I was looking elsewhere and took off like a frightened child.

What a spineless JERK!

What must we do with this sad excuse for a Democrat?
. . .
I would like to remind Sen. Salazar that a majority of Americans (not just liberals) want the troops redeployed from Iraq - the sooner the better. They have expressed this time and time again. When will you and your colleagues hear us and respond appropriately?
. . .
And to think I was actually starting to be bamboozled by his line of bullshit about how he might think about voting to de-fund the war.

Ah well, Senator. What's a few thousand more casualties, when you can enjoy the continued warm fuzzies of "bipartisanship"?

I will not vote for this man again for any office. I will not trust any candidate for President who is ignorant enough to put Salazar on the ticket.
. . .
One more reason to show that "centrism" isn't a principled political position but a strategy: allow other people to set the terms of the debate, then split the difference. Like I've said in other threads, by 2010 when Kiss Ass Ken is up for reelection the real question will be who will do the least damage: (a) a senior senator in the majority party who behaves in a destructive and demoralizing manner (Salazar) or (b) a junior senator from the minority party. At this point I'm thinking (b).

If the moonbats in the "MoveOn" wing of the Democratic Party had any intellectual consistency--or guts, for that matter--they would primary Sen. Salazar in 2010.

Perhaps they could convince one of the Democratic millionaires in the "Gang of Four" to become their champion.