Short Bits...

David Broder

In his July 5 column, David Broder called for "bipartisanship"--something he rarely if ever called for during the Bush Administration but he also took the opportunity to take a cheap shot at Senator Al Franken: "Now that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ended the long count on the 2008 Senate race by awarding the seat to Al Franken, Democrats -- at least on paper -- have the power to pass whatever bills they want, without a single Republican vote. Nothing would be a bigger mistake.

"Franken, the loud-mouthed former comedian (Broder's words), will be the 60th member of the Senate Democratic caucus -- just enough for them to cut off any filibuster threat if they can muster all their members...

"Yet that would not only contradict President Obama's promise to change the partisan climate in Washington but would also entail unnecessary risks to Obama's ambitious policy goals..."

Al Franken is hardly a clown. He is a Harvard graduate who has pretty much succeeded in everything thing he has attempted in his life, whether it be actor, writer, radio commentator and now politician. He is also a bit of a nerd and a guy who scored 800 on his math SATs (a perfect score inthose days). I wonder how many of his critics can match his intellect?

Broder would not be among them.

Unfortunately this "fog of rhetoric" from Broder speaks volumes on how inept this once good reporter has become. I certainly don't mind that he may or may not be a conservative. What is truly troubling is his apparent inability to understand what is going on. He was wrong on Ted Stevens, wrong to suck up to Karl Rove, wrong on George Bush "regaining his footing", wrong on torture and the Bush Administrations justification there of, wrong to attack Obama just days after he took office (and in at least one instance, even before) and so much more.

Broder is the curmudgeon who can neither see nor hear but doesn't allow either condition to prevent him from offering an opinion.

That anyone takes him seriously (other than the Ann Coulter crowd) is a mystery to me. But then again so is what has happened to that once great newspaper, the Washington Post...



The Liz Cheney Show

The sad part about the Liz Cheney show is that, other than Lawrence O'Donnell, virtually no one on mainstream televisionchallenges her. They are ill prepared or ill equipped--neither of which is acceptable. So when she lies, it goes unquestioned.

For example, her recent contention on CNN with Anderson Cooper that the unreleased CIA documents support her father is absurd. We KNOW she has not seen them. Yet no one questions her about this. So exactly how does she know? From her father? The man who said Iraq would be a cake walk and that we would be greeted as liberators? That lying moron?

The other contentions which go unchallenged do nothing the interests of the ill informed and the neo cons who got us into this mess in the first place. It is incumbent on journalists to do their homework and be prepared. Almost have failed miserably.

Frank Gaffney

Also in the news is Frank Gaffney, rightwing commentator for the Moonie newspaper Washington Times. Frank Gaffney is one taco short of a combination plate. He is an intellectual lightweight, a protege of the coward and dishonest Richard Perle.

Gaffney wrote a June 9th column reviewing President Obama's speech in Cairo and then suggested Obama is indeed a Muslim. His evidence? None, other than this: “there is mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but actually may still be one himself.” Huh?

It gets better: “Mr. Obama referred four times in his speech to ‘the Holy Koran,’” he “established his firsthand knowledge of Islam,” and he uttered the phrase “peace be upon them” when referring to Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed.

Gaffney clearly dislikes the POTUS but his arguments are just a little lame. In October 2008, Gaffney questioned whether then Senator of Illinois Barack Obama is a "natural born citizen of the United States" and his legal eligibility to be president.

In a February 2009 Washington Times column, Gaffney accused President Obama of "embracing the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood," a militant organization banned throughout the Middle East.

In April 2009, Gaffney appeared on television and accused President Obama of using coded language to indicate that America would submit to Sharia law.

His views beyond President Obama are equally dubious: in March Gaffney tried to connect Sadamn Hussein and the 1993 WTC bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing. His evidence? None.

In 2003, Gaffney called on the United States military to "take out" the Al Jazeera news network for inciting violence against the Western world by showcasing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's "calls-to-arms."

In Dec 2008 Gaffney defended Cheney and the Bush Administration's argument claiming WMD and for the Iraq war. He said, "It is regrettable that they had to die, but I believe they did have to die. The danger was inaction could have resulted in the death of a great many more Americans than 4,000. And that's the reason I'm still delighted that we did what we did."

Gaffney is a former Reagan administration official who got his start working under Perle. He is an over-the-top neoconservative hardliner whose favorite word is "Islamofascists". Like his mentor Perle, there is no record of Gaffney ever serving in the US military thgough hew is of age to have served in Vietnam and later conflicts.

Gaffney is a classic neo con. He lies. He makes stuff up. He repeats his lies and expects you to believe him. He wonders why no one takes him seriously. Why any serious journal bothers to talk to this clown is beyond me.

You can't fix stupid.