Simpsons as political commentary

Every so often there will be a show/movie/play or what have you that has undercurrents of Change (Change with a capital C as denoting permanent and fundamental change as opposed to change which is minor and transient). For example, in Mr. and Mrs. Smith the relationship between the characters of Pitt and Jolie demonstrate a change to the dynamics of gender roles in action flicks. It is Pitt who is reckless and damaging, his jobs sometimes being less optimal due to his random nature. Jolie on the other hand is firmly in control of the situations at all times, able to deal with surprises, effective.
It is Jolie who demands...and receives..."the guy gun". It is Pitt who is ineffective at dealing with pursuers whereas Jolie drives better, shoots better (also illustrated in the shooting gallery at the carnival scene), and ends the threat to them. It is Pitt who is "emotional" and unable to do his job while Jolie remains "rational" and in control.
None of these things explicitly says "Here is a challenge to social expectations. Because of the magnitude of the stars it will be effective and in the future these role reversals will be acceptable."
Yet movie convention is changed forever. No longer are directors compelled to have damsel in distress/male as rescuer scenarios, for example. The woman as action/adventure star as opposed to needing a male lead gained steam in the Tomb Raider franchise and is exapanded on both in Ecks Versus Severn and even further expanded in Mr. & Mrs. Smith.
Other times the statements are more explicit. The Simpsons writers clearly have a bee in their bonnet as the first two episodes from the current season have been among the most explicitly political episodes ever.
In the Halloween "Treehouse of Terror" the recurring alien invaders Kang and Krodos lay waste to Springfield. As the camera sweeps over the burned out buildings, devastated statue of Jebediah Springfield, and corpses lying all over the place one says, "You said we would be welcomed as...liberators." The stark silence behind them of course indicates everyone is dead.
The most recent episode saw Homer join the army and during war games the army invades Springfield. You would have to have seen both episodes to get the sum and total lof the political statement but essentially they are saying entering Iraq was a mistake, the Army never learns from their mistakes, but the right thing to do is leave right now no matter what. A lot of this was subtly drawn out with hard to interpret interchanges like this:
Townsman (pointing gun at Army official laying helplessly on ground): "Learn from your mistakes and surrender!
Army dude: "Never!"
The second one worked much better than the Treehouse, mostly because, unlike the Treehouse episode, this one was funny. And doubtless numerous clones will be trumpeting the brilliant satire/commentary. Indeed, I also agree that often the Simpsons shows have some fairly insightful commentary and it cuts across the board. Their condemnation of the dumbing down of education to make sure nobody gets an advantage over the "slowest" (or, often enough, laziest) students was classic, their commentary on the suppression of opposition speech was pretty strong...
However, one problem with satire, such as the rather funny (in my humble yet accurate opinion) Grasshopper/Ant one I posted a few days ago here is the satire pretty much has to take one side and ignore the other.
For example, the suppression of speech in opposition to Presidential policies is certainly a reality...but here in Oregon, so is suppression of speech of anyone with the unmitigated gall to agree with anything he has said or done. To much of the left, Bush is the devil incarnate. He is more hateful to them than Clinton was to even the most ardent of supporters of honesty and morality. And anyone who is "stupid enough" (and yes, I have heard it phrased that way repeatedly) to believe in anything Bush is doing is shouted down and prevented from airing their views.
The spiteful rhetoric of much of the "left" is about how hateful and angry and filled with name calling the "right" is. The rhetoric is grounded in truth and very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Neither side is innocent of that charge.
Another example would be the critique of Iraq. Many, not all but many of the so-called "open minded" minions spout the conventional wisdom, accepted as pure, unadulterated, undebatable iron clad truth, that nothing good has been accomplished in Iraq, nobody wants us there and the entire thing was a mistake.
There are several problems with this. For example, Hussein, mass murderer and oppressor of minorities was removed. If Clinton had done this there would be universal cheers from most of the same people criticizing it now. Another illustration would be the near constant feedback from the people on the ground. Contrary to the media reports the people on the ground that I know have reported the gratitude of the Iraqui populace, the improvement they have received in quality of life. However, actual evidence from people is unacceptable, especially if it contradicts what these shapers of public perception want.
See also the nonsensical charge that the evidence of WMD was all a fabrication. Well...IF...and I emphasize the IF it was all a fabrication then the fabrication occurred under Clinton at which time the statements that Hussein was an immediate threat and had to be removed were made by people like...wait for it...Clinton and Kerry.
The idea the US should get out of Iraq instantly has credibility in some corners...but those who believe it is best for the US to leave certainly is not a group that includes the Iraqui government. It was instructive to see them maneuvering to decide how best to approach the incoming power party, the Dems, to make sure the US maintained a strong presence in Iraq.
A lot of mistakes were made....but here is a news flash. That is the nature of war. George Washington made mistakes in his war against the British...yet is largely hailed as among our greatest war leaders ever. Patton was a continous series of mistakes yet he stands almost at the pinnacle of the pantheon of great U.S. war leaders alongside Eisenhower. Robert E. Lee is studied still for his tactical brilliance...you may remember him as the losing General in the Civil War.
Napoleon, oft considered THE greatest military mind of all time made critical series of mistakes. There is no sure-fire blue print for how to fight a war. This holds even more true for unconventional wars against groups that adapt their tactics to their current situation. Just as Washington was criticized by his opponents because he didn't "fight fair" a lot of people are criticizing the insurgents in Iraq for not fighting fair. This is just as inane as the accusation the war was unjustified and accomplished nothing.
Strangely, the louder the opposition to the war gets the more in favor of it I become and largely for the reasons stated above. Misrepresentations of what happened, retroactively revising who supported it, when and why, watching media misportrayals, and watching the nation build towards a consensus based on flawed assumptions, flawed accusations, and general, outright, unreasoning hatred and spite all make me suspicious.
It is a lot like watching a Michael Moore mockumentary; you know you are being lied to, you know you are being manipulated, and if you can't figure out why then it makes you nervous. And if you can't get past the lies and manipulations...you turn on them. Having seen two of his idiotice bits of agit-prop I can honestly say he did a good job of moving me towards being in favor of relaxing gun laws and supporting Bush. The war reaction is doing a similar thing.