Share this Digg Del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot Furl Yahoo Blogmarks Technorati Newsvine Googlize this Facebook Wikio Export PDF Print E-mail Tags petraeus betray organization? collectively impeachment resignation expression overlooked threatened censuring criticize

by Jimmy Montague

Just a note here because nobody else seems to have called this shot:

Was the U.S. Senate vote to censure Move On for the Petraeus/Betray Us ad an expression of U.S. Senate racism?

Think about it:

Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales was called before the Senate to testify under oath. He lied to the Senate. All the world knew he was lying. The Senate went up in smoke for weeks over Gonzo's contempt. They peed and moaned and threatened impeachment -- but they never actually did a thing about it. Now Gonzo has resigned, the whole affair is suddenly forgotten and no matter that lying to Congress is a felony rap.

Now comes Petraeus. He didn't testify before the Senate under oath, it's true. But he lied to the Senate all the same. The majority of the Senate knew he was lying. All the world knows Petraeus was lying. But what do we get from the Senate in response? The senators are all lined up behind the lying bastard, eager for a chance to kiss his uniformed ass. So far from calling for his ouster or his resignation, as they did in the case of Gonzo, the Senate is censuring people like Move On, who dare to criticize Petraeus in public.

There's something mighty fishy about all of that. The Senate denies as a body that it's playing politics in the case of Petraeus. So there must be another reason that a body of 100 mostly white guys would knowingly permit another white guy to tell them lies but go hell-bent-for-election after a Mexican who dared to do the same.

Somebody tell me if I've overlooked something here. Is Move On a Hispanic organization? Or does the Senate collectively have something against short guys? Are they queer for uniforms? What?


Quote this article on your site