So what's with congress anyway?

So what's with congress anyway?

By Pappy McFae

I know I have asked the question of why congress is so apparently without a spine when it comes to dealing with the chimp in chief. I usually ask this question when congress rolls over and shows their soft, white underbelly at the command of DUBYA; more like obedient dogs than human beings. And since that happened more than once this week, I guess it once again bears asking, "why is congress so reticent to stand up to DUBYA, or Dick(LESS), or even one of the DUBYA minions that has now rejoined "private" life, such as Hot Karl Rove?"

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was "tangible progress" in Iraq, and that "Iraqi leaders are stepping forward." And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq, said, "We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress."

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That's because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths caused by car bombs don't count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head-not the front. According to the Associated Press, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any summer we've been there. We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But, we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows: Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand troops. But we won't hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today, before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

SOURCE

Well, there it is in shocking detail. There it is in all its stark, unpatriotic brilliance. Those four paragraphs above are the reason why the Senate went out of its way to condemn MoveOn.org. As I peruse it, I don't see anything at all disrespectful. I also don't see anything shocking, offensive, out of the realm of possibility, or even new. For those interested, here is a Washington Post fact check Of the ad.

As you can see, MoveOn.org did fudge some of the facts, and others were true. In consideration of the batch of bullshit disguised as news with which we are deluged daily, it's pretty much average, if not a bit more good than bad. In other words, barring the tone in which it was delivered, it was a fairly accurate assessment of the situation.

So let's look at the tone. The general idea is presented in a matter of fact fashion. There is an obvious anti-war slant to the article, but I see nothing even remotely disrespectful...that is unless telling the truth has somehow morphed into disrespect. I should know. I have written more than one disrespectful article and comment. My use of DUBYA is meant to be both disrespectful and derogatory. I know from disrespectful!

Another criticism of the ad is that it is offensive. To be sure, it calls the patriotism of General Petraeus into question. For sure, it could be seen as offensive, if one is offended by the telling of a truth that keeps getting spoken; the truth that the American people are sick of the Iraq War. It is offensive if one is easily offended by the suggestion that perhaps a general's job IS NOT to be the mouthpiece of the president. It is offensive if you consider questioning anyone who is involved in this mess in Iraq offensive.

Therefore, it can be seen that MoveOn.org stretched a truth here or there. And depending upon how you look at the ad, it could be seen as disrespectful and offensive. One would have to be possessed of skin as thin as the average onion, or be very easily offended to be offended by the ad. I have written stuff that was way more offensive...it was engineered to be!

 1  |  2