"If by clothes we mean any kind of clothes, visible or not, then yes, Emperor is fully dressed, however, if the goal of dressing is covering the private parts..."

is definitely a better statement then "the Emperor is naked". Shame, little boy, shame!

Broder is not the first journalist who finds standard English distastful, as opposed to orotund phrasing that includes indirections etc. However, to equate an pretend-amnesiac who looks dishonest to all with a yokel (in Broder estimation) is still a stretch.

To me, Schumer's point is perfectly clear.  The specific military engagement in Iraq is a hopeless mess (i.e. "lost") while the larger war on terrorism is not lost.  Schumer may not have said this in the clearest way possible, but it seems to me that Broder is being deliberately obtuse so that he can make the larger point about Reid.

What's interesting is that Broder would compare Reid to Alberto Bonzales who, even Broder admits is an incompetent fool.  The worst that can be said about Reid is that he threw some insults and then took them back.  That, to Broder, is on a par with the serial obfuscations of Gonzales.  Amazing.  But actually not that uncommon for Broder, who thinks the worst sin one can commit is to upset the genteel clubby atmosphere of political Washington. 

Well said on both counts.

... except I would comment that the phrase "war on terror" is not an accurate way to phrase what should be going on. The phrase "war on terror" gives Bush the excuse he needs to say the nation is at war and thus he can use John Yoo's "unitary executive" theory to justify all sorts of illegal actions.

Tom

I'm not sure why Schumer's comments are any more convoluted or vulnerable to attack than Reid's own, original comments.

Reid said that the PRESIDENT's war is lost, and that we need to change course to salvage the situation.

Schumer clarified this (even in Broder's abbreviated version) by saying that intervening in a civil war is unwinnable, though there may be other missions in Iraq which can succeed.

They both seem pretty clear-cut to me, and they've both been subjected to baseless attacks (Reid more than Broder) which minimize the distinctions each Democrat made and misrepresents their statements. That Republicans and the dean of Washington journalism are playing very similar (identical, even) games here that are based on misrepresentation is the real story--as Josh has been hammering away at.

M.J.: I'm confused... why exactly was Schumer's statement so wrong?

Broder is a sad relic- a cross between Dana Carvey's "Grumpy Old Man" (Back in my day...), and a paternalist, desperately clinging to an old regime of thought that can only be defended by dismissing the obvious reality.

His mantle of being the "Dean of the Washington Press Corps" seems more and more like a diploma from a back-of-the-matchbook-cover vocational school.

Alphonse ( Al ) Kada
Iranians are fighting the Americans in Iraq so they don't have to fight them on the streets of Tehran

J. McCutchen

Gen. PetRaeus's Friday Follies Redux

Back in December I believe it was, Ivo Daadler, commenting on the ISG report, urged politicians and policy makers to begin telling the truth about the war that the Baker-Hamilton commission exposed for all to see - Bush's war in Iraq has failed.

Broder's column merely illustrates another truth that has been apparent and consistent since this before the first shot was fired - the policy debate among Washington elites and the US media coverage of it is largely irrelevant to the facts on the ground in Iraq. It is almost as if the debate were being held on another planet.

Take Gen Petraeus's performance today, The Friday Follies redux. I said back when he was appointed that Bush chose the man for his proven track record of media flim flam and not his supposed COIN sophistication.

The LA Times today confirms my suspicions. Bush needed someone who'd feed Beltway shills like Broder, Gordon etc...

U.N. report and LA Times data paint grim Iraq picture BAGHDAD — Academics are being assassinated, prisoners are being tortured, women are being murdered by their own families in so-called "honor killings," and civilians continue to be cut down by rampant violence, the United Nations said today in a report painting a grim picture of life in Iraq.
The report, which covers from Jan. 1, 2007 through March 31, was most notable for what it did not include: the number of civilian deaths.
That's because the Iraqi government refused to release those numbers, the U.N. spokesman, Said Arikat, said as he presented the organization's 10th such summary of the human rights situation in Iraq.

all these things were happening before we ever invaded Iraq. If one of Saddam's sons wanted to sleep with your wife, they ordered her brought to them, and if you protested you were eliminated. We've dug up hundreds of thousands in mass graves.

Iraqi's are responsible for the ills of their society, and if their society only works under the grim rule of the cruelest of dictators, one has to ask whether there is anything there worth trying to salvage.

I agree with those who think that Schumer was neither unclear, nor was he criticizing Reid, nor was he disagreeing with Reid.

I would even say that Reid have thrown a political football and Schumer carried the ball further.

I actually disagree with "100 years of civil war" claim, but the civil war is there, and we wish neither side to win. This makes the war unwinnable for us.

Broder's major point is that both Gonzales and Reid are so much beneath Broderian intellect that it is pointless to distinguish between the two.

By the way: why Broder did not compare VT massacre to Sarajevo assasination? Because he was not visiting Sarajevo State U, that's why. Sarajevan's can "recall the scars of the assasination" as well as Memphisians.
(The scars of an assasination? What are they? In any case, how are they "recalled" by young people born after the fact? can misfired metaphores leave scars?)

The War on Terror© is the cause (justification) Bush uses to pursue his misadventures. But Reid wasn’t talking about some metaphysical war, which I think is an oxymoron anyway.

Reid was only stating plain and simple truth that the very real war in Iraq is lost by any standard objective, and probably by any of the vague rationales for victory the admin periodically proclaims. There is nothing inept, incompetent, unclear, divisive or radical about Reid’s statement.

The real sin in Broder's world is the lack of "bi-partisanship" on Reid's part. Broder truly believes that the Iraq Study Group settled the problem of Iraq in a "centrist" and "bi-partisan" manner and anyone who deviates from the "plan" devised by "elder statesmen" (like Baker who in reality spent his entire career as a Bush family retainer) is a loose cannon and out of control.

Broder regularly confuses bi-partisanship with singing along with the program - if Grandpa Baker and Hamilton have decided we're all going to sing 'In the Good Ole Summertime' then dadgummit, they must have a reason, which is for them to know and you to find out, afterall, none of these old guys have a dog in the hunt, they're "elder statesmen" that makes them in Broder's eyes pure of heart and noble of purpose, even if most of these old fucks were the ones to get us into trouble in the first place.

When Broder was a kid he and the old timers on the Iraq Study group had to get up at 3 in the morning and build a truck and drive to Nova Scotia and deliver newspapers for a penny a piece and on the way home dig ditches and on Christmas day they had one m&m they had to split nine ways and then they all went to sleep in the same bed with one blanket - that makes them smarter than the rest of us.

I think he met up with the devil at the crossroads many years back and made his Faustian pact (the devil looked remarkably like GWB but with more pointed ears). For his part, he was given his dream- to be the top inside-the-beltway mealy-mouthed Washington pundit but he had to pay for this dream by being an inside-the-beltway mealy-mouthed Washington pundit.

The issue here is Broder, someone not supposed to be a partisan hack. He's wanting to criticize Harry Reid, and he distorts a statement by a fellow Democrat to justify his criticism.

Quite simply, he did not have an argument against Reid, so he just made shit up.

If you compare politics to baseball, Broder thinks being a good umpire means calling each side for the same number of foul pitches. And it's this sort of umpiring that corrupts the game.

Paul Begala has a great piece on Dean Broder;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-begala/david-broder-is-a-gasbag_b_46923.html

"But at the end of a career of sucking up to warmongers and Republicans, Mr. Broder has found his true hero in George W. Bush. Where others see a mush-mouthed semi-literate, Broder sees FDR: "As a counterpuncher to criticism and as a doubt-free exponent of his own beliefs, the current president is right up there with the inventor of the New Deal."

Broder has been running away from the Democratic party as fast as his stubby little legs can take him. "Conventional wisdom" has been right wing...devoid of ideas or integrity or moral sense...for a long time; and Broder, never a deep or perceptive thinker, has joined the Republican-lite gang even when it is demonstrably clear there is NO Republican light...you either join the crazies or you are a traitor.

The Post itself is pretty much a house organ for the muted version of Right Wing Crazy; an organ without an audience merely validating the nuts.

"Most people still believe that terrorism is a significant threat and should be treated as such."

No disagreement there.

Where I do continue to disagree, however, is with that phrase "war on terrorism". Misuse of language is one of the tactics Bush is using supposedly in reaction to 9/11 but really to give himself the "unitary Executive" rationale to use inappropriate and illegal actions. Bush is not using "war on terror" in a metaphorical sense as LBJ did with the "war on poverty". He is using it in the sense of a self-declared, never-ending actual war to arrogate power unto himself.

Tom

My question is whether edits of prior comments should get new date-time stamps as they now do.

Wouldn't it be possible for the blogging application to add something like "Rev. date-time" to the original line?

Far from nitpicking, this is actually important.

Broder, heck most of the journalists out there, still give this reverence to Bush, despite the fact that he's down the tubes among The People.

Bush and Co. have not been correct about anything that has to do with this war, but, for some reason, this surge will work? And, for some reason, we need to give him a bill with no accountability? 

Bush has already come out, several times, and said, in effect, "I will not work with the Congress."

You're either with him or against him... 

Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code. -- SCOTUS that was...

Choice 1: A Professional journalist, when faced with ambiguity (how to interpret Reid) seeks to clarify.

Choice 2: An opportunistic journalist reports while manipulating the context to reinforce the point of view of his boss/benefactor.

Choice 3: A Prima Donna journalist reports whatever is necessary - regardless of context - to enhance his/her image to the elites that are personally important.

Broder on Reid: straw poll - multiple choices allowed!

you need to read real news reports more often, klyde. You arrive at these #'s by actually COUNTING the bodies you dig up. It's gruesome, horrifying, and it was going on for 30 years in that country.

jexster, this level of violence was not unprecidented under Saddam. Maybe you missed the UNSC votes that set up the no-fly zone because Kurds were being slaughtered and driven from their homes by the hundreds of thousands.

You really need to educate yourself about what is going on in the world. As i write this, 200,000 mostly political prisoners are locked up in a gulag the size of Rhode Island in North Korea. Just like the Iraqi's under Saddam, nobody cares. For this reason, I don't find the concern of most activists to be genuine now that the media is paying attention to what is happening in Iraq.

Most of the Iraqi's dying now are being killed by "resistance fighters". Just as we saw in India/the Balkins, even Ireland -- once the brutal hand of a dictator or occupier is released, there is a bloodbath in the country, so Iraq is following a gruesome historical pattern. Should Bush have anticipated and done more to guard against it, absolutely, but America is not to blame for the violence Iraqi's visit on each other any more than any of the other civil conflicts I've mentioned.

We need to create a nickname for David Broder.

How about "Elmer"?

The weird thing is that Broder loves a good compromise, but somehow has come to accept the idea that compromise is not something Bush will ever do, and therefore, in Broder's bizarre world, it's incumbent for others to compromise. Otherwise no compromise will happen!

Why a lack of compromise doesn't reflect poorly on Bush, but does on Pelosi and Reid, is not something I understand.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid should be finding a way to impeach GW Bush and Dick Cheney not aiding and abetting them from in front or behind. IMO, working with Bush is not an option to be considered.

There quite a large number the Neo-Con movers and shakers behind this felonious administration that need to spend some serious time behind bars instead of teaching at university, heading a world bank and the like. Their lies about the situation in Iraq that deliberately committed this nation's troops and treasury to an illegal war to the detriment of ninety-five percent of the American citizenry are nothing short of treasonous. Were this the Nineteenth Century these slime balls would be stood against a wall and shot after a very short trial. At this point I, a man who has always opposed capital punishment, find that to be an attractive solution.

Horrendous crimes have been committed by this administration that imperil this nation’s economy, security and its traditional devotion to Constructional principles and the rule of law. I am sick of the press/media either sugarcoating or looking the other way at what has occurred and a bunch of bought off Congress critters who KNOW what has been done and by whom playing self-aggrandizing footsie with this pack of traitors in and behind this administration.

The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.

H. L. Mencken

Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.

Henry Steele Commager

hahaha, good one :-)

"This letter was signed by Sen. Reid's 50 colleagues in the caucus."

I take it then that Lieberman signed the letter. At all significant?

This is an excellent post, as it points out at least two important issues: first, Chuck Schumer has a big mouth and uses it far too often; second, the Dems are in disarray, message-wise.

Reid, of course, is right. The "war", if by that we mean the chance for a successful occupation and withdrawal, leaving behind a democratic, pro-western state, was lost a long time ago, probably by the winter of 2003 (see Juan Cole).

Bush won the war, but then lost the peace, and it IS lost, irretrievably. Americans know this instinctively, even if most can't verbalize it. Reid's statement doesn't need Schumer's "clarification", it needs to be debated, and the ultimate answer is obvious.

Second, the Dems, so far, are their usual inept selves at selling their POV to the public. They whine and complain about being called unpatriotic, which only invites the debate: Are the Dems Unpatriotic? A stupid debate to be drawn into, let alone invite.

The Dems need to remember only three words: attack, attack, attack. When some cowardly little Republican measle like Cheney calls you unpatriotic, you don't complain about his "tactics" or "lack of civility;" you question HIS patriotism, and you do it loudly, every single day, until the debate is about HIS patriotism, not yours.

Who has done more for al Qaeda than Cheney and Bush? Who has weakened America more, Bush or bin Laden? Who has sacrificed more American lives and treasure for no good reason than Bush and Cheney? Who has corrupted our traditions, laws, institutions, and democratic processes more, the Republicans or al Qaeda?

THAT'S the debate the Dems should be encouraging, and the way to encourage it is to make the charges. Believe it, people are ready to hear it!

What do you disagree about? Bush manifestly IS using the "War on Terror" to justify numerous illegal actions, such as the designation and detention of anyone he chooses, including US citizens, as "enemy combatants."

When was a Colombian drug lord, or a local drig dealer, ever designated as an "enemy combatant" by Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton, and jailed without trial?

This is no metaphor. It's an assault on our basic governmental structure. It's a descent into fascism. As for whether it's a 'real' war, of course it's not. Bush uses the term to justify his desire to establish dictatorial powers for his executive branch.

As for 'terrorism' being a 'significant' threat, well it wasn't before Bush took office. His incompetence facilitated the success of the 9/11 attacks, and that 'success' far outstripped anything al Qaeda has managed before or since. The importation and distribution of cocaine and heroin since the 1980s were, in comparison, far greater threats to US security than al Qaeda was or is.

This is an example of the above; "attack, attack, attack." This is exactly what the Dems need to do when dingbats like Broder peddle this kind of crapola. The Dems can't sit idly by and allow the MSM to use them as punching bags. The Gore, Kerry campaigns showed what happens when the MSM see the Dems as easy targets.

Lieberman was the only Dem to side with the Republicans on the war bill yesterday.

My point, which I obviously didn't make very clearly, is that using the word "war" doesn't necessarily lead to the abuses of power and depredations that we've seen.  Throughout American history, we've managed to conduct real wars WITHOUT these sorts of abuses.

The Bushies could have called it any number of things and still done the things they did.  They could have also called it a war and not done the things they did.  The use of the word "war" and the abuses of power are not necessarily correlated. 

Yes, I understand the power of language in politics.  I've read Orwell etc. I just don't think language is destiny.

How about "David Ordure"? OE for filth, excrement. David Ordure, Dean of the Beltway Brown-nosers. Works for me.

And what does the WaPo emit? The Odor of Broder.

The man is beyond noxious. He is toxic.

I'll wait to hear Blitzer say to Bill Bennett or one of the other conservative regulars;

"Referring to Dick Cheney, Harry Reid said, 'I'm not going to debate someone with a 9% approval rating, what about that?"

Not as good as your example, but it shows a contrast between Cheney and Reid.

hahahahaha :-)

"Elmer" is up with another column today;

"Straight Talking Again"

Broder sticks his head up McCain's a** and tells how McCain has now started attacking the Bush administration. (after years of brown nosing them)

"Candor, even belatedly, becomes him," babbles ole Elmer.

Of course it never occurred to ole Elmer that McCain is "FLIP FLOPPING!"

J. McCutchen

Of course it was unprecedented. Bush's war is responsible for more death and destruction in 4 years than Saddam visited on his people in 25.

The UN reports document this as do the testimony of ordinary Iraqis - two million refugees say you don't know what you are talking about, four million and one, if you include the Baghdad blogger Riverbend who is headed to Syria.

The Great Wall of Segregation...
…Which is the wall the current Iraqi government is building (with the support and guidance of the Americans). It's a wall that is intended to separate and isolate what is now considered the largest 'Sunni' area in Baghdad- let no one say the Americans are not building anything. According to plans the Iraqi puppets and Americans cooked up, it will 'protect' A'adhamiya, a residential/mercantile area that the current Iraqi government and their death squads couldn't empty of Sunnis.
The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look- we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here- it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.
The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently- Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer- like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".
I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq). They refuse to believe that their religiously inclined, sectarian political parties fueled this whole Sunni/Shia conflict. They refuse to acknowledge that this situation is a direct result of the war and occupation. They go on and on about Iraq's history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven't been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there.
I remember Baghdad before the war- one could live anywhere..

One doesn't have to love Saddam to see the truth, only open the eyes. None of this would have happened but for the invasion and Bush was warned..Watch 60 Minutes on Sunday...

Blame the victim for what exactly? Being backward? Uncivilized?

Spare us your civilized guilty conscience. Blame the invader for the destruction and the death - all of it.

If that makes you uncomfortable, so be it.

I edited mine when I realized I had mistakenly added an extra "s" to a word.

Tom

The problem with Schumer's quote is that he didn't clarify what he meant by "THE war." Clearly, he meant the war on terror but you'd only know that by reading the entire quotation. I don't think Schumer undercut Reid reading his quotation the way I did above.

Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam>

Eggs act, Lee.

Sorry, can't agree with you on this one.  While I don't want to downplay those transgressions that have happened in the past, I think it's perfectly possible to say that Bush and Cheney have broken entirely new ground, especially in the use of torture on foreign detainees, the outsourcing of interrogation to brutal regimes elsewhere around the world and in holding enemy combatants in legal limbo with no recourse and no POW status (although I'll admit I don't know enough about the Civil War-era suspension of habeus corpus to know how much this differs from that).