Starting with David Broder's piece that starts like this:
Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance.
If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.
This is a great example of my title here.
I am sure many guessed Harry Reid was the answer, but how many would admit Broder is right?
From the right, I agree 100% that Gonzales showed an incredible inability to explain the attorney firings in a comprehensive manner which, in turn, led to the witch hunt that the democrats are now on.
See? We, on the right, have no problem admitting when one of our own screws up and the only reason I believe Gonzales should not resign is because he gives the left someone to "go after", after his original bumbling explanations, he should have to deal with the fallout and not run away so that the democrats can then focus on their next victim.
We have just shown, again, OUR ability to call one of our own out for stupidity, yet further in the article, we see a fine example of the left NEVER being able to admit when one of theirs do wrong.
As if that were not mind-boggling enough, consider the mental gyrations performed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) as he rationalized the recent comment from his majority leader, Harry Reid, the leading light of Searchlight, Nev., that the war in Iraq "is lost."
On "Fox News Sunday," Schumer offered this clarification of Reid's off-the-cuff comment. "What Harry Reid is saying is that this war is lost -- in other words, a war where we mainly spend our time policing a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis. We are not going to solve that problem. . . . The war is not lost. And Harry Reid believes this -- we Democrats believe it. . . . So the bottom line is if the war continues on this path, if we continue to try to police and settle a civil war that's been going on for hundreds of years in Iraq, we can't win. But on the other hand, if we change the mission and have that mission focus on the more narrow goal of counterterrorism, we sure can win."
Everyone got that? This war is lost. But the war can be won. Not since Bill Clinton famously pondered the meaning of the word "is" has a Democratic leader confused things as much as Harry Reid did with his inept discussion of the alternatives in Iraq.
Nor is this the first time Senate Democrats, who chose Reid as their leader over Chris Dodd of Connecticut, have had to ponder the political fallout from one of Reid's tussles with the language.
Hailed by his staff as "a strong leader who speaks his mind in direct fashion," Reid is assuredly not a man who misses many opportunities to put his foot in his mouth.
Chuck Schumer, excuses, explains and tries to rationalize BAGHDAD REID'S idiocy, instead of simply showing the courage of honesty and saying, "yeah, he screwed up".
Lets look at how the left reacts to Broder calling Baghdad Reid out on his fumbling big mouth.
So David Broder continues his assault on incompetence in Washington by going after... Harry Reid. This is exactly the kind of crack reporting we've come to expect from the fuzzy old man of the columnist corps!
No need to look farther than the title alone at The American Street to show their inability to #1. Focus on the issue of Reid and Gonzales as the original Broder article does before they sink back into their Bush Derangement Syndrome. #2. To demonstrate why they cannot be trusted to police their own party.
If you cannot admit when one of your own screws up, especially after seeing our soldiers public reactions to Baghdad Reid's words, then what hope can we have for the party itself?
Their title "With logic like this, who needs drooling blather?"
Those two are simply thrown out there as the example of how the left has no ability to be "honest" when it is about one of their own.
The next article is a Wapo piece also, written by Joe Lieberman, and anyone who reads this blog regularly knows I kinda like Joe, I disagree with him on quite a few issues and agree with him on some, but he doesn't walk lock step with the Democrats OR the Republicans, he casts his votes according to what HE believes, he has principle, which is why quite a few on the left despise him.
He explains why he feels we only have one choice in Iraq, it is a two page article, but he makes a statement in it that I take issue with.
When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.
I take issue with this because I personally DO think that it IS their intent. I think they make these statements, not giving a damn that they demoralize our troops and encourage our enemies, in fact, I will go one step further, I think they make the type of statemets that Baghdad Reid made on purpose, knowing full well that they will be encouraging the enemies to fight even harder, knowing full well, that if he can demoralize our troops enough they may lose the edge needed and get themselves killed, because THEN Reid can use those deaths yet again to further his own "political" agenda.
The Democrats in Congress and the Senate pass a bill knowing that it will be vetoed, they deliberately hold off with our troops funds so that they have time to make the appropriate television commercials to play their political football game with our troops lives.
Captain's Quarters, once again, states it perfectly:
The difference is that the Bush administration understands the catastrophe in store for the region if the US yanks the troops from Iraq, while the Democrats have played this new strategy strictly for political gain. The same party leaders that scolded Bush during the election last year for listening to Donald Rumsfeld rather than his field commanders now won't even bother to attend a briefing with Petraeus before setting out on this course. They set the vote up in order to coordinate campaign commercials while declaring defeat from Capitol Hill. They have made themselves into a disgrace in less than four months in power, reminding the nation why they locked them out of power for the previous six years.
So the left not only doesn't have the moral backbone to admit when one of their own does wrong, but they also have no compunction about endangering our troops lives so that they can score a few political points in a vote that passed with such a slim majority that it has no possible way of withstanding nor overriding a Presidential veto and they do it as a "show".
All in all the left and the democratic party prove time and time again every word we say about them, they do often and they do it with no regard to the facts to the contrary.
I am going to show you something I posted on yesterday and then ask a question.
BASH: You talked several times about General Petraeus. You know that he is here in town. He was at the White House today, sitting with the president in the Oval Office and the president said that he wants to make it clear that Washington should not be telling him, General Petraeus, a commander on the ground in Iraq, what to do, particularly, the president was talking about Democrats in Congress.
He also said that General Petraeus is going to come to the Hill and make it clear to you that there is progress going on in Iraq, that the so-called surge is working. Will you believe him when he says that?
REID: No, I don't believe him, because it's not happening. All you have to do is look at the facts.
What facts is Baghdad Reid speaking about? The "facts" that he sees in the newspapers? If he has no interest in hearing the true "facts" from the Commander ON THE GROUND in Iraq, where on earth do you get the "facts"?
Seriously, think about it.
Where do you go to get the facts of a military operation? The Military? The soldiers? The Commanders on the ground? Or the media?
Where IS Baghdad Reid getting his facts if not from the people there in Iraq?
Same goes for Pelosi, how can she ever speak to the "facts" on the ground in Iraq if she doesn't even have the courtesy to meet with commanders running the operations on the ground?
So we now have the Democratic politicians that are claiming they know the facts on the ground but no one can establish where they are getting the facts!!!!!!!!!!
They certainly aren't getting their facts from the commanders or the soldiers because we have shown you dozens and dozens of emails, letters and correspondence with our troops which completely contradict those that the Damascus Diva and Baghdad Reid are spewing forth.
The democrats are getting their information from THE MEDIA!!!!!!!!!!!
So.... where do you get YOUR facts folks?
(NOTE: To commenters, agree or disagree, but when commenting on THIS post, it is required that you answer that last question first or your comments will not be accepted and you will be told to try again. Trying to distract from the question will not work here.)