Reuters interpretation of the SOTU (must see)

[Pierre.Suave]

<snip>
"The president urged a rebellious Congress to give his new Iraq war plan a chance and insisted it is not too late to shape the outcome."
<snip>

So, now Reuters is calling the democratically elected congress, REBELLIOUS for disagreeing with Bush and his army of bots.

And here I was, thinking they were doing something good...

Link: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2007-01-24T040658Z_01_N23191849_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-STATE.xml&src=012307_2357_TOPSTORY_state_of_the_union

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. In this case, rebellious is a good thing.

[Pierre.Suave]

2. Ya'but

the simple fact that they are labeling dissent as rebellious is outrageous.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

3. I would support that kind of rebellion.

It beats the hell out of them facilitating his every whim.

[Canuckistanian]

4. The colonists were "rebellious" in 1775-1783

And look where that got them.

[TahitiNut]

5. I guess that "coequal branches of government" thing is quaint, too?

Funny, that. :puke:

[O.M.B.inOhio]

6. "Madam Speaker, you rebel scum!"

That was in the first draft of the SOTU.

[firefox_fan]

7. Glad they did not call it an "insurgent " Congress...

Man...

[woo me with science]

8. sheesh. nt