Much controversy surrounded this ad. It is no wonder. The controversy came from a incredibly small remainder of human beings, who out of ignorance or hobbled by duty, still support the republican dream. They had no choice but to complain vociferously…..reality had given them no other choice…..

I see it with my kids…..it is human nature…..nothing to be ashamed of. When one is guilty of making a mistake…..one counters with their own outrageous accusation about one of their siblings.

Those of you who are employers, and confront employees about their errors, first have to work through their accusations about their fellow employee’s errors……

So it seems to be embedded in our genomes that if we, have no rational or reasonable method to explain our actions,………we create an outrage somewhere else to blunt our ineptitude and funnel anger into that direction.

Bottom line: it was just an ad.

To put things in perspective, how many Americans died because of the ad? How many Iraqis died because of the ad? How many Americans will be deformed for life, because of this ad? How many Iraqi’s will be deformed for life because of this ad? How many years will we be overtaxed, to pay for this ad? These are pertinent questions. And judging from the explosion of comment within the American press, the effect worked. We are actually, attempting to place on the floor of the Senate, an amendment condemning this ad.

Are we adding an amendment to stop the killing of Americans? No……Are we adding an amendment to stop the killing of Iraqi? No………Are we adding and amendment to stop pissing away mine and Dave Anderson’s future income? No…….

So in a sham, we are made to pretend we are outraged, outraged that something so horrible, so despicable has occurred! Calls within the VP’s office to Arrest Move-On, water-board them, kill them and drag their bodies behind Toyata pickups.

But there is something profoundly bizarre. This outrage occurred solely in the American Press and within the republican ranks of Congress. The Global press ignored it except to say “what’s wrong with these American’s getting so up-tight with an ad?” In blogger world, no one cares…you may Google some responses, but since bloggers tend to be better educated than elected republicans, the consensus has been “so what” Here is one example:

Once upon a time, everything was going great in our country — its finances, its wars, its economy, everything! — then some organization placed an ad in a newspaper and it was the most horrible thing ever.

It was real bad — there was an ad. In a newspaper.

And then everything went to shit and that ad was the only thing the pundits could talk about.

The end.

And on the Senate Floor came this rebuttal to the republican charge of outrageousness. Dick Durbin was the author.

Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. CORNYN. I yield for a question.

Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in the 2004 Presidential campaign, I might ask the Senator from Texas, there was a group from Texas that attacked Senator John Kerry and said he was undeserving of the commendations and decorations he received for his courage in fighting in Vietnam and raised questions about others who served in the military who were part of his swift boat operation. One would have to say, by any stretch, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were attacking the honor and integrity of one of our colleagues who served with honor in the Vietnam war.

I would like to ask the Senator from Texas if he is prepared to remain consistent and if he is also prepared to amend his amendment to repudiate the activities, actions, and statements of the Texas-based Swift Boat Veterans for Truth organization with their unwarranted attacks on our colleague, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, during the 2004 campaign.”

The republicans, taken aback, bumblelingly responsed that Kerry was a political figure. It is perfectly fine to smear political figures anyway, anyhow, and anytime you can.

Here was the rebuttal:

MR. DURBIN … I am troubled by the conclusion of my colleague from Texas that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth could attack Senator JOHN KERRY for his valor and courage fighting for America in Vietnam and that for some reason we shouldn’t repudiate that attack; that it is OK because it happened, as my colleague said, during a political campaign. If this is about the honor and integrity of our Armed Forces, past and present, whether it takes place during a political campaign or at half time at a football game should make no difference. If the Senator from Texas believes we should stand on a regular basis and condemn those who would attack the honor and integrity of warriors who have served this country with valor in past wars and present wars, then he should be consistent. It is totally inconsistent for him to pick one organization and to ignore the obvious: There are others who have done the same thing.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a classic example of an organization that distorted the truth about Senator JOHN KERRY and others who served our country during the Vietnam war. The fact that they did it during a Presidential campaign should have absolutely nothing to do with it, if this is a matter of principle. However, if it is not a matter of principle and something else, then you would pick and choose those organizations you want to condemn or repudiate. Unfortunately, the Senator from Texas has picked one organization. He doesn’t want to talk about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He certainly doesn’t want to repudiate them. I think they should be repudiated. What they did cast a shadow on the combat decorations given to others during the course of that war.

What Senator JOHN KERRY did was to volunteer to serve our country, put his life on the line, face combat, stand up and fight for his fellow sailors on that swift boat, and then come back to the criticism, the chief criticism of a group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.”

Finally this comment from Barbara Boxer, (D CA) :

MRS. BOXER: … The fact of the matter is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth went after a war hero and told stories to the American people that were not true and tried to sully a hero’s reputation.

But he is not the only Senator who was attacked, as my friend remembers what happened to our colleague, Max Cleland. I know he does. Here is a veteran who gave three limbs for his country–three limbs. It is harder for him, for the first 2 hours of every day, to get ready for the day than it is for the Senator from Texas or myself or the Senator from Illinois to do our work for a month. Yet this man was viciously attacked and his patriotism called into question. Oh, yes, my friend might say, it was during a political campaign. It was disgusting. So we raise these issues.

What I wish to ask my friend is this: I was thinking–as the Senator from Texas, my friend and colleague, was speaking–I was thinking about some retired generals who spoke out against this war and said they were called traitors and worse. So I am looking at ways to incorporate into this a condemnation of anyone who would attack a retired general for speaking out against a war because I think that was low and it was horrible. It was frightening because, in a way, it was saying to these retired generals that they had no voice, no independent voice.

So I wish to thank my colleague, and I wonder if he recalls these generals. I will have more details as I put together my second-degree amendment as well.

Icing on the cake:

MR. DURBIN: … I don’t think the fact that it happens during a campaign absolves anybody from the responsibility of telling the truth and honoring those who served. In this case, two Democrats, Senator Max Cleland and Senator JOHN KERRY, were attacked, and there wasn’t a long line of people on the floor to condemn the attackers. Now that the Senator from Texas has decided we should bring this up as part of the Defense authorization bill, I hope he will be consistent, and I hope he will consistently stand up for the reputations of the men and women in uniform, starting with General Petraeus but including those who served in this war and other wars in the past.

Each of them deserves our respect. I might add, parenthetically–it is worth saying–even if we disagree with their political views, they still deserve our respect. To attack their honor and integrity is wrong.”

Once again we see how in the light of open and vigorous debate, that “silliness” becomes flushed out into the open, and becomes sanitized by the light of day. And thereby, through proper civilized use of debate, the American people remain protected from poorly passed legislation.

To beat Tyler Nixon to the punch, it is not just congressional republicans who use this method of obfuscation. Our state’s Democratic Senate is just as guilty……..

I can only hope that this facetious argument has merit in the long run. If it opens normal, hard working everyday American’s eyes, to the tactics of bait and switch, and keeps our eyes focused on what really matters……Americans fighting and dying for a lost cause……….then perpetrators of false diatribe, once exposed as the problem, can be removed from office in the next general election.

Regardless of which party they hail from…….

Bottom line: it was just an ad. And depending upon one’s interpretation, a very effective one at that. It seems like each time this foolish idea is debated in public, the few pixils of respect still left upon the face of the republican party, become removed byte by byte………