In Thursday’s paper my retired eyes hit upon a headline that began, “Fractious debate mars …” Without reading the rest of it, I fallaciously jumped to the conclusion that there was some kind of debate going on somewhere on Earth about Mars. Aware of the most recent scientific analysis confirming that there is water on Mars — if not Mars oil, I did a one-and-a-half gainer into the article with all sorts of excited expectations.
And then I discovered the truth: The “fractious debate” was not about Mars, but Iraq. The article, by Jim Abrams of the Associated Press, speaks rather early on of a “raucous debate” between House Democrats and Republicans “over whether the (Iraq) war was warranted and had made the world a safer place.” One could quickly guess which side claimed President Bush’s policies flawed, and which side said Saddam Hussein’s forced departure from power was a victory over terrorism.
It was the chicken-hawks versus the chickens. The chickenhawks’ simple four-point resolution praised U.S. troops and the Iraqi people on the first anniversary of the war in Iraq. The resolution, which passed 327-93, saw numerous chickens vote yes, despite their expressed displeasure, on the grounds that they wanted to show support for American troops.
Didn’t Spanish voters express their displeasure on the grounds that they wanted to show support for Spanish troops by bringing them home? Of course, the point of all of this is that you shouldn’t jump to conclusions about Mars or chickens.