I was rubbing my eyes this morning as I read the Washington Post. Was I really reading honest, decent, fair reporting? It sure looked that way. William Arkin is the best reporter on military issues out there. Still, I was surprised to see him write this (emphasis added):
I don’t know which would be worse for the United States: an American shoot-down of a North Korean missile test, or an unsuccessful attempt to do so. The latter might remind the American public of the vast sums wasted on “defense,” and provoke a discussion of the flawed strategy and policy behind missile defenses. That strategy assumes diplomacy will fail, and only our shield will protect us from irrational states.
How refreshing it is to read someone questioning the vast sums we waste on “defense”. The Washington Post is slipping. And further evidence of their slippage is provided by Harold Meyerson’s editorial Lieberman Versus the Democrats. Meyerson takes down Holy Joe with blog-like snark and precision.
After quoting Lieberman’s interview with David Broder, Meyerson makes the obvious points.
How’s that again? To criticize Bush on the war is partisan, while refusing to criticize Bush on the war affirms the national interest? That’s taking a rather partisan — a pro-Bush partisan — view of the national interest. Lieberman is surely right that one party has exploited the war for partisan gain, but that party is the GOP. From forcing through a resolution authorizing the war on the eve of the 2002 elections to last week’s vote in the House, the Republicans have continually used the war to play gotcha with any Democrats from swing states or districts with the guts to dissent from the administration’s non-reality-based view of the conflict.
In talking with Broder, Lieberman also expressed a kind of wry nostalgia for the pre-primary days when political bosses could assemble slates of candidates essentially by themselves. But the last stand of the bosses came in 1968, when machine-appointed delegates to the Democratic National Convention nominated Hubert Humphrey for president even though the voters in those states that had held primaries had favored the anti-Vietnam War candidacies of Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy. Thereafter, delegates in every state were selected in primaries and caucuses, as party leaders concluded that voters would demand — and even deserved — a say on issues as fundamental as Vietnam. To Joe Lieberman’s apparent dismay, Iraq is just such an issue, and the voters of his state are just irresponsible enough to judge him on it.
Be still my bleeding heart. I couldn’t have said it better myself. The Washington Post wouldn’t be what it is though, without Howard Kurtz taking potshots at Markos and Jerome. Note to Howie: you can fight back any way you want, but you are still a total hack. You’ll always be a hack. A paid shill. I’m just glad your paper managed to produce some solid content today, for a change.
