Sunday, September 23, 2007

Phony Outrage

Is anyone else weary of this General Petraeus ad outrage on the part of the Right? Seriously, the General is a big boy, and I'm sure he can take having his views challenged without getting his own knickers in a snit. That ad was tacky, to be sure, but it was just so much barking in response to all the neocon barking about the war from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and the list of yappers goes on and on. It is rather humorous to see the likes of Rush Limbaugh pretending to be outraged, outraged I say! by somebody hurting Petraeus's feelings. Give me a break. Half of what comes out of the mouths of these Far Right mouthpieces is far more offensive than that advertisement. (If you don't like it, don't read it!) But on they bleat ... in a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the fact that there's a mess over there in Iraq that, in large part, we helped orchestrate, and we have a Prez who can't admit he made a mistake, so the hole keeps getting deeper and deeper.

But the truly annoying thing is the colossal waste of time Congress spent mustering up a condemnation of the ad. Barack Obama was right in refusing to even be a part of the discussion. And kudos to Hillary Clinton for refusing to condemn the ad. Last thing I knew, free speech was a hallmark of our society. Remember freedom? You know, that very thing Petraeus is, ostensibly, over there in Iraq fighting for in the first place.

If you're not ever supposed to question a General, and it seems Rudy Guiliani recently suggested as much, then what kind of society of sheep does he want to be da Preznit of? Bleat! Bleat! This is a democracy. We're allowed to question our leaders. Indeed, it is our moral imperative. Given the present corrupt Administration, lately this seems even more urgent a task.


Spokane Al said...

This comes from the New York Times.

This morning, Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of the New York Times, acknowledged that the paper had violated its own advertising policies by giving a discounted rate for the ad that accused General Petraeus of being a traitor. Hoyt also said that in his judgment, the ad should not have been approved under the paper's policy that states, “We do not accept opinion advertisements that are attacks of a personal nature.”

I just don't see this advertisement as a questioning of a general.

Joyce said...

The ad itself was clearly opinion, and opinions are neither illegal nor libelous. If they were, Petraeus would have grounds for a lawsuit.

I don't see Ann Coulter's calling John Edwards a "faggot" as questioning him or his politics, either. It was the same as this as: her opinion, an attack of a personal nature."