Saturday, June 24, 2006
The GOP and Iraq: The Post clears it all up
The Washington Post provides us with a contrasting message with these two articles in today’s paper: Republicans Get Selective In Backing Bush Agenda and Clinton Says GOP Blindly Follows Bush.
The first article is designated “Analysis” which is Post-speak for: “even we’re not going to try and pretend this is a real news story.” In it, Peter Baker makes the rather obvious point that, on the whole, Republicans are still with the President on Iraq but are decidedly not when it comes to immigration.
The second article, by veteran Bush-basher Dan Balz, highlights Sen. Clinton’s recent criticism of congressional GOPers:
“We're not blindly united like the other side is, where they are like the three monkeys -- 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil,' " she told reporters after a speech to the Democratic group NDN. "They're not going to say anything negative about the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense or anybody else. I think that's irresponsible. It's negligent."
Hillary Clinton is, of course, famous for her tolerance of dissent and negativity. We all remember how she celebrated the opportunity to publicly discuss her health care proposals in 1993:
“May 20, 1993 - The first of four scheduled internal health-policy debates takes place at the White House. Clinton asks everyone present to keep the meeting private but the very next weekend accounts of the session appear in the Washington Post and the New York Times. The next three debates are indefinitely postponed. This incident, and others, make the Clintons and Magaziner feel they are being subjected to intentional acts of disloyalty.” NewsHour Online: The Healthcare Debate leading up to Clinton's Healthcare Address to Congress
Nowhere in this second article does Mr. Balz question Ms. Clinton as to why she thinks the Republicans remain united around Iraq if his colleague at the Post, Peter Baker, reports that Republicans are being election-driven in their support of the President’s agenda and, as he reports, polls show that Iraq support could be a losing proposition:
“A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that 54 percent of those surveyed said they were more likely to support a candidate who favors pulling all American troops out of Iraq over the next 12 months.”
Of course, he also doesn’t connect how:
“That same poll showed that 57 percent of Americans favor reducing troop levels but that only 38 percent support a fixed timetable for removing them.”
So, we now know that 54% will support someone who favors a complete pullout within twelve months but only 38% will support a fixed timetable….what do they think completely out in 12 months is?
Final nit-pick: “One proposal, written by Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), would have forced the withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops by next summer.”
How exactly would that resolution have “forced” the complete withdrawal if, as a rule, congressional resolutions generally don’t force the President to do anything?
The first article is designated “Analysis” which is Post-speak for: “even we’re not going to try and pretend this is a real news story.” In it, Peter Baker makes the rather obvious point that, on the whole, Republicans are still with the President on Iraq but are decidedly not when it comes to immigration.
The second article, by veteran Bush-basher Dan Balz, highlights Sen. Clinton’s recent criticism of congressional GOPers:
“We're not blindly united like the other side is, where they are like the three monkeys -- 'hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil,' " she told reporters after a speech to the Democratic group NDN. "They're not going to say anything negative about the president, the vice president, the secretary of defense or anybody else. I think that's irresponsible. It's negligent."
Hillary Clinton is, of course, famous for her tolerance of dissent and negativity. We all remember how she celebrated the opportunity to publicly discuss her health care proposals in 1993:
“May 20, 1993 - The first of four scheduled internal health-policy debates takes place at the White House. Clinton asks everyone present to keep the meeting private but the very next weekend accounts of the session appear in the Washington Post and the New York Times. The next three debates are indefinitely postponed. This incident, and others, make the Clintons and Magaziner feel they are being subjected to intentional acts of disloyalty.” NewsHour Online: The Healthcare Debate leading up to Clinton's Healthcare Address to Congress
Nowhere in this second article does Mr. Balz question Ms. Clinton as to why she thinks the Republicans remain united around Iraq if his colleague at the Post, Peter Baker, reports that Republicans are being election-driven in their support of the President’s agenda and, as he reports, polls show that Iraq support could be a losing proposition:
“A recent NBC-Wall Street Journal poll found that 54 percent of those surveyed said they were more likely to support a candidate who favors pulling all American troops out of Iraq over the next 12 months.”
Of course, he also doesn’t connect how:
“That same poll showed that 57 percent of Americans favor reducing troop levels but that only 38 percent support a fixed timetable for removing them.”
So, we now know that 54% will support someone who favors a complete pullout within twelve months but only 38% will support a fixed timetable….what do they think completely out in 12 months is?
Final nit-pick: “One proposal, written by Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), would have forced the withdrawal of all U.S. combat troops by next summer.”
How exactly would that resolution have “forced” the complete withdrawal if, as a rule, congressional resolutions generally don’t force the President to do anything?
