The "Petraeus/BetrayUs" Scandal: It Could Have Been A Lot Worse

Just in case you haven't heard, the Senate yesterday passed a measure condemning MoveOn.org for an ad it ran in the New York Times last week attacking Gen. David Petraeus. The General's last name just happens to rhyme with "Betray Us," and MoveOn took full advantage of this remarkable coincidence by running an ad which suggested (gasp!) that Petraeus' report on the Iraq War might not have exactly reflected the reality on the ground over there.

What MoveOn did was awful -- it had to have been, given that 23 brave Democratic Senators voted "yes" on yesterday's measure. I mean, all the General did was act as a shill for the Bush Regime by going before Congress and essentially lying about how well the Iraq War was going, using statistics that could best be described as dubious and at worst be described as outright fabrications.

And what's so bad about that? All the General did was pretty much act like just about every other BushCo political operative who has appeared before Congress during the last six years. Yet MoveOn viciously attacked him for it.

Now the entire country is in an uproar over what MoveOn did -- and by "entire country," I mean a few Republican Senators and some people over at FoxNews.

But I'm thinking that this scandal could have been a lot worse. Let's face it: having the last name of "Petraeus" is really pretty innocuous in the grand scheme of things because the only good rhyme that can be made from such a name is "Betray Us."

Indeed, I think we lucked out big time on that score because the General, after all, could have had a name like Prothermucker, or BumSchlitt, or Crasshole, or Tritt Sorbains, or Pumbfruck, or Benedict Arnold, or Shinseki-Naught, or Ausekrisser. I mean, the list of possible -- and far worse -- names he could have had is virtually endless.

I think the country really dodged a bullet here.