No, Fuck You

The Washington Post's latest editorial on Iraq is, of course, idiotic:

The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible....A Democratic strategy of trying to use Iraq as a polarizing campaign issue and as a club against moderate Republicans who are up for reelection will certainly have the effect of making consensus impossible — and deepening the trouble for Iraq and for American security.

Yes, yes . . . providing political cover to moderate Republicans who want to distance themselves from Bush while minimizing the practical impact of their actions would solve our problems in Iraq.

Comments

You made me hit you. Aren't you going to apologize?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 21, 2007 2:20 PM

Bipartisanship got us into this mess, surely it will get us out!

Posted by Doctor Memory | July 21, 2007 2:34 PM

The same kind of thinking that got President Cheney an apology for shooting a man in the face, no?

Posted by David in MD | July 21, 2007 2:45 PM

we'd get along better if you'd stop complaining every time I hit you.

Posted by r€nato | July 21, 2007 2:49 PM

Ok, is it just me or is Matt using the "F" word a lot more now that he's on The Atlantic?

It's not that I'm offended -- I have a filthy mouth -- I'm just sayin'...

Posted by Don | July 21, 2007 2:52 PM

Matt is exactly right. I said the same thing yesterday about GOP whining at Reid's unwillingness to 'compromise'.

Posted by Don | July 21, 2007 2:57 PM

I say if you are getting raped, lean back and enjoy it.

-

Posted by Freddie Hiatt | July 21, 2007 3:19 PM

Here's the thing: Hiatt thinks that everyone agrees on "[a strategy] one aimed at carrying the U.S. mission through the end of the Bush administration and beyond" and that it's irresponsible of Reid not to let the "large majority" of Senators who apparently favor this vote in favor of it. But since this is a bad insofar as it means anything other than a safe withdrawal as quickly as possible, and one that a large number of Senators either think is a terrible idea or are willing to act as if they do because they know voters think that way, there's going to have to be some debate, since apparently people don't agree, and in particular many of them think Fred Hiatt's plan sucks. I mean, it sure would be nice if everyone agreed with my views on every issue, but I don't get to take as a premise that that's so and then argue that people preventing this agreement from manifesting itself are evil.

Also, MY, I think it would be nice if you wrote some longer posts again, including if that were at the expense of writing fewer posts. See, e.g., this one, for an example of what personally really like and would like to see more in the style of.

Posted by washerdreyer | July 21, 2007 4:12 PM

Fred Hiatt : Dick Cheney :: Tim Donaghy : Mob

Posted by delicious Pundit | July 21, 2007 4:22 PM

Years ago I thought it was a silly bit of neo-Marxist tripe when Sista Souljah called the Washington Post a far-right reactionary paper. Now I think she had a point.

Posted by Reality Man | July 21, 2007 4:25 PM

Everyone should take a minute and ask themselves where we'd be if Republicans still controlled both the House and the Senate.

That's what Fred Hiatt wishes for.

Posted by bdr | July 21, 2007 4:26 PM

Matt
Saale Bahenchod would be most appropriate for WaPo. You should popularize the phrase.

Posted by gregor | July 21, 2007 4:48 PM

"Everyone should take a minute and ask themselves where we'd be if Republicans still controlled both the House and the Senate."

Iran would be the new Iraq.
Iraq would be the new Afghanistan.
Afghanistan would be the new Darfur.
Darfur would be the new Gaza.
Gaza would be the new Lebanon.
Lebanon would be the new West Bank.
The West Bank would be the new Newark, NJ.

Posted by Jeremy | July 21, 2007 4:53 PM

Of course, the reason Hiatt's so pissed at Harry is because Harry Reid's just cut off the GOP "moderate" Senators' escape routes.

They were all ready to vote for proposed legislation, to be attached to the Defense Appropriations bill, that would have purported to pull us out of Iraq when in fact it would have done nothing. You know -- the Salazar distraction, the Warner-Lugar blather, stuff like that.

But when Reid pulled the DA bill, he also made it impossible to attach anything to it.

So now, the GOP Senators have to either vote to end the filibuster on Reed-Levin (which DOES have actual teeth and timelines), or basically admit to their increasingly anti-Iraq-war constituents that they're Bush's lapdogs.

That's why Hiatt's pissed.

Posted by Phoenix Woman | July 21, 2007 4:58 PM

Hey Jeremy...

Just what do you mean by that Newark NJ comment?

smooches,
Rob in Newark

PS The WP can go fuck themselves

Posted by roberto | July 21, 2007 6:05 PM

Stop putting your face in front of Dick Cheney's shotgun.

Posted by Dan | July 21, 2007 10:29 PM

You made me shoot you in the face. Aren't you going to apologize?

Posted by Stuart | July 21, 2007 10:45 PM

Fred Hiatt is, of course, a cocaine-dealing pedophile.

Oh wait, you mean superciliously inserting the words "of course" into a defamatory smear doesn't make it legitimate? Who knew!

Posted by moron | July 22, 2007 5:30 AM

Wow - have you seen the comments on that editorial? There are like 45 pages of comments, and as far as I can tell, ALL of them are violently opposed to Fred's position. I'd take that as reason for hope for some improvement in the quality of their editorials - but no, actually listening to your readers would be like... letting an orthodontist run the Pentagon.

Posted by Sean Peters | July 22, 2007 10:43 AM

I'm shocked, shocked I say, that anyone would use the occupation escalation terrorist multiplier strategery as a political blunt instrument.

I simply cannot clutch my pearls any tighter. Does anyone have a tissue?

Posted by Oilfieldguy | July 22, 2007 3:20 PM