While I was at work today, something happened (to say the least).
Are we finally going to get the investigation for which we've had to beg for over two solid years while these Democrat-hating partisans of the GOP covered up a presidential administration's lies which culminated in the rash, poorly timed, disastrously planned, strategically flawed, and terror-increasing war in Iraq? How could they - any of these Republicans in power - have done this to the American people and thought they could have gotten away with it? I suppose they thought they could keep talking happy talk about the war and that it would all blow over. Well - now it's blown UP.
For three years, I've gone to bed each night asking how this could have happened in a democratic society like America. Over 2000 troops gone. Over 2000 troops gone. Over 2000 troops - - far more than just numbers - - - gone.
How many more will have to die?
I wrote to my (Republican) Congressman James Walsh last June and have never gotten a response or even an acknowlegement. Why does he feel unaccountable to constituents?
Perhaps now we'll finally get the answers that Senator "I choose party-loyalty-over-America" Pat Roberts has denied us for so long (along with the President and Senate majority leader Bill Frist.)
And that seasoned journalist named Jeff Gannon (aka James Guckert) was right on top of the Pat Roberts story. Hmmmm....Who was feeding him these assignments - and why?
Mark Schmitt called this a political 'tipping point.' [TPM Cafe]
The GOP cried "Politics!" every time they were close to getting caught in their lies. If they were lies that didn't matter, it would be different. Since those lies were the proximate cause of the death of 2000 troops and all the people who loved them, I think they are material lies. If not for the lies, partisan-political maneuvering, and deliberate omissions, we would not have gone to war the way we did; at the time that we did. It's high time for an investigation into the use/abuse of intelligence.
Look for plenty of kvetching about how Harry Reid is schooling hapless Bill Frist, and how the Senate Republicans can't control the chamber. One day after the Alito nomination, which is interpreted as Bush's caputulation to his conservative base, that can't be overlooked. After all, the Republicans will only want a fight if they think they can win, and fewer and fewer Republicans will believe Frist can ever lead them to a procedural victory. - DHinMI
I don't know who ever deemed Chris Matthews the "Archbishop of Democratic Ethics," although I think it was probably Chris Matthews himself. According to this story, Mr. Matthews alleged, all day long yesterday on MSNBC, that there was an "unfair and distasteful attack" by the DNC on Judge Samuel Alito, thus spinning a negative talking point that will, inevitably, soon hurl out of control. Gee, what fair journalism, Chris Matthews. The minority has an ultraconservative Supreme Court nominee shoved down their throats and you make a hyperspeed attack upon the minority. Way to go, Captain Courageous. Come out of the gate beating up on the citizens who don't care to have an extreme ideologue taking the place of "swing-vote Sandra Day O'Connor." That's how mainstream journalism speaks to power these days, eh?
The point DHinMI is making, which is a far more fair and balanced point than that of Chris Matthews, is not just a call of unfair mainstream journalism toward Mr. Matthews. He asks you to "choose the biggest DNC bonehead of the day."
While I understand the spirit of his comments, I think that DHinMI is being a bit too generous by saying:
We can and should be angry about how the press reacts to stuff like this, but in a sense it's like getting angry at your dog for eatiing the pot roast you put on the garage floor. You have to prevent screw ups like this, because it's easily exploitable into a "story" or a "controversy." People can argue about whether the press would be as likely to jump on the GOP if the situation were reversed; maybe hey wouldn't, and maybe the deck is stacked against us. But it is what it is, and you can't complain too much about the media environment we operate in if it distracts you from attending to the details and making sound decisions.
I agree that screw-ups open the door to mainstream grousing. However, we Democrats have lost too much political ground by the creation of a false conventional wisdom by this type of disproportionate concentration of criticism by MSM. The values of the people who belong to the Democratic party are not adequately represented when hay is made of small (yet admittedly relevant) details. I'm angry at MSM for their yapping and I'm upset at the DNC for making any case for the yapping to continue. I'm SICK of my values, as a Democrat, getting completely lost in this flurry of bullshit.
"...I personally have nothing against slime if it's well done -- we're in a war here and the Rovians have already made it clear that they don't respect the Geneva Conventions. But if the DNC really wants spread the rumor that Alito is soft on the Mafia, there are hell of lot more intelligent ways of getting the job done."
Joseph Wilson Speech - National Press Club See Joseph Wilson at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. in a speech from yesterday, October 31, 2005. [CSPAN]
The nature of his mission - "I don't "do" clandestine - I "do" diplomacy."
The focus of the mission- "This was not a WMD issue. This was a mining issue. Uranium yellowcake is not WMD."
Regarding Bob Novak's curiosity as to why the CIA would send Joe Wilson, a Democrat, to Iraq: Mr. Wilson's answer was that the CIA did not send "Joe Wilson - a Democrat," but as an American diplomat with a certain amount of expertise in Niger. Wilson said he was well-known by Republicans as charge d'affaire for GHW Bush and GWH Bush's ambassador to African countries.
On his experience during the first Gulf war - "What I brought to the table for my argument was not any sense of partisanship. I brought my experience in Iraq during the first Gulf war... When I had met with the Iraqi government day in and day out - where I had worked 20 hours a day on behalf of my fellow citizens and on behalf of the notion that we had to do everything diplomatically that we possibly could to get Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait rather than to have to use American military to drive him out of Kuwait."
On Regime Change (for the sake of regime change): "WMD, disarmament of Saddam Hussein, was a legitimate international objective and a worthy American objective. Regime change, for the sake of regime change, was a recipe for future problems."
'The Challenge' was not about WMD: "I did not ever challenge the question of WMD or whether or not Saddam had WMD or had a nuclear program. I challlenged the rationale for regime change - not for disarmament.."