On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

The Pundits Are Worried

But only about import things: their jobs.

From Eric Alterman’s piece, The Punditocracy vs. History:

It’s 1972 all over again or so Cokie, Broder, Marty, Jacob, Bill, Bob, Joe, are telling us. The Democrats blew it by endorsing a left wing “elitist” antiwar candidate who hated Middle America back then, and now are getting read to do the same. Here’s the thing, being a pundit makes you stupid. All these pundits supported the war, natch, and understand at some subliminal level, that they too are being rejected by the voters who blame Lieberman for trusting Bush and getting us into this horrific war. They reach for the nearest historical analogy they can find to bolster their argument and settle on 1972. Thing is, they understand very little of history, most of them having stopped reading anything but one another in college.

Later he capture this: “White House spokesman Tony Snow put it more succinctly, ‘A white flag [in Iraq] in short means a white flag in the war on terror.'”

Actually, most of the “liberals” I know felt and feel that Iraq is a distraction from the real “war on terror”: the dismantling of al Qaeda and the capture of Osama bin Laden. The failure to capture bin Laden makes us look impotent in the Muslim world.

After five years of the Shrubbery our border’s a sieve; there are minimal cargo inspections; we can’t respond to disasters; the military is broken; and we are several trillion dollars further in debt. Why would any sane individual want to continue on this course?


1 Karen { 08.11.06 at 1:50 pm }

Amazing to me is the energy these lying between their teeth GOPhuckers folks put into defending a self-described Liberal/moderate Democrat! (Except – once ya realize He’s NOT what he claims to be — Kinda like Shrubs is some self-described “Compassionate Conservative”. Yeah Righti-O. Hahahhaha!)

I HOPE he gets his ass head handed to him on a platter in NOV.

2 Steve Bates { 08.11.06 at 3:32 pm }

Bin Laden goes free, and the U.S. invaded a nation that did not attack us and was not associated with those people who did. Could we possibly look like bigger fools in the eyes of the world?

Last night I criticized a local blogger called Rightwingsparkle who immediately, in under 9 hours after the foiled plot was announced, said that the Democrats have no plan to deal with such things. Damned if we don’t: we want to replace the incompetents running the show right now with someone who cares about something besides power and money, someone who knows all parts of their anatomy from any holes in the ground. That’s my plan. For all my reservations about Al Gore, if he had been president when the 9/11/2001 attacks happened, we wouldn’t be in nearly as big a mess. But the Bushies are all politics and no policy, and here we are, going down fast. Which party really has no plan? I believe the psych term for what Rightwingsparkle was doing (along with 99 percent of the right blogosphere) is “projection.”

3 Bryan { 08.11.06 at 4:00 pm }

It really ticks me off that they get to ignore that there was a plan in place to deal with terrorists. The first element was people like Richard Clarke who were fanatics on the subject and pushing as hard they could to keep it on the front burner.

Condi Rice and her National Security team ignored Clarke. Ashcroft eliminated funding for counter-terrorism on 9/10/01.

The Democratic plan was to catch the people behind 9/11, not use it as an excuse to invade another country.

The people who were just picked up by the British had ties to Pakistan, where al Qaeda is hiding. If we had finished Osama when we had the chance at Tora Bora people wouldn’t be dumping water bottles to get on a plane today.