The Premiere of LOST IN DC genre: Just Jihad & Polispeak & Snapshot Thoughts

Now that David Broder has explained to me how Alberto Gonzales and Harry Reid are both "springtime exhibitions of ineptitude" I have suddenly found myself with a better understanding of the Bush administration. Had I only realized sooner that a war cannot be lost if it never ends, I could have felt the relief that comes with unmitigated denial. Thank you, Mr. Broder, for providing this tasty morsel of enlightenment.

If only I had known earlier that I could cease listening to the Democrats suggest that we are losing the war in Iraq, I would have been able to come to grips with the length of the war, the cost of the war, the deaths that have resulted from the war...all the while knowing full well that we will eventually win this war. I owe my newfound clarity to Mr. Broder and for that I am eternally grateful...especially given the fact that this war may well take an eternity to win. Such symmetry is rarely found. Unfortunately, I must lack the wherewithal to see the obvious.

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.

President Bush's highly developed tolerance for egregious incompetence in his administration may have met its supreme test in Attorney General Gonzales, who at various times has taken complete responsibility for the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and professed complete ignorance of the reasons for their dismissal. This demonstration of serial obfuscation so impressed the president that he rushed out to declare that Gonzales had "increased my confidence in his ability to do the job."

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."

[...] Reid's verbal wanderings on the war in Iraq are consequential -- not just for his party and the Senate but for the more important question of what happens to U.S. policy in that violent country and to the men and women whose lives are at stake.

Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.

Instead of reinforcing the important proposition -- defined by the Iraq Study Group-- that a military strategy for Iraq is necessary but not sufficient to solve the myriad political problems of that country, Reid has mistakenly argued that the military effort is lost but a diplomatic-political strategy can still succeed.

The Democrats deserve better, and the country needs more, than Harry Reid has offered as Senate majority leader.

I wish I had Broder's critical thinking skills. When Harry Reid said that the war in Iraq is lost, I mistakenly thought he was arguing that the manner and methods employed in Iraq to this point are a failure and that more of the same would only serve to support a losing proposition. Knowing that most Democrats and numerous other opponents of the Bush administration's prosecution of the war have long argued that we must find a political solution to the conflict led me to believe that Reid was simply stating the obvious...but Mr. Broder, with his vast breadth of objective reasoning saw through Mr. Reid's remarks.

Broder suggests that Reid's incoherent posturing will make it impossible to negotiate with the President...a man Broder apparently knows to be reasonable, rational, and amenable to considering alternative approaches to the war in Iraq. Senator Reid, in his shortsightedness, has seemingly precluded the possibility of a meaningful dialogue focused upon crafting a revised strategy that will be mutually satisfactory.

Again, my shallow observations had led me to conclude that the President's recently announced and enacted military surge was in fact a preemptive signal that he intended to continue seeking a military solution...and that he wasn't amenable to an open dialogue focused on a far different approach.

Fortunately, after reading Mr. Broder, I realized that it is in fact the Democrats and those opposed to the Bush administration's prosecution of this war who are pursuing strategies that are inflexible and arbitrary. I stand corrected.

If this country is to ever exit the island of illusions that has become the hallmark of the Bush administration, the last thing we'll need is to enlist more men like David who forego intellectual honesty in favor of far fetched fabrication.

In the meantime, I think Mr. Broder would be an ideal candidate to make a cameo appearance in the recently launched television series...LOST IN DC. The following graphic is a preview of what the viewer can expect.


Lost In DC

Daniel DiRito | April 26, 2007 | 1:48 PM
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Post a comment

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry

© Copyright 2024


Read about the Director and Cast

Send us an email

Select a theme:

Critic's Corner

 Subscribe in a reader


Powered by:
Movable Type 4.2-en

© Copyright 2024

site by Eagle River Partners & Carlson Design