Hiatt Chutzpah

For a guy who has gotten everything wrong on Iraq, supporting the Neocon agenda from beginning to end, and who clapped as loud as possible for President Bush's action on most every contentious issue, you have to admire Fred Hiatt's sheer gall. He has the gall to call someone not named Bush or Cheney or Hiatt irresponsible on Iraq:

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.

See, Hiatt's newest friends, the so called GOP Moderates like Warner and Lugar, don't have a chance to make phony deals, as Warner did in the May Iraq Supplemental for "benchmarks." We now know "benchmarks" never meant a darn (well, we knew it then but Fred Hiatt pretended it meant something.)

The good news is Fred Hiatt and his ilk are irrelevant now in terms of framing public opinion. The Beltway Gasbags are ignored by all except themselves. The question now is can Democrats muster the resolve to stop Fred Hiatt's favorite policy disaster, Bush's Iraq Debacle. Harry Reid has gotten it. And I think most Dems are getting it. And Fred Hiatt continues his long track record of ignominy. The man has been a disgrace for some time. Thank God he is now an irrelevant disgrace.

< Bush Confirms Power of CIA in Detainee Interrogations | Aspen Daily News : Gonzo Edition >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I couldn't agree more about ... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    ...your take on Hiatt's ignominy and hubris.

    However, I think there is about a 3-to-1 likelihood that what we'll see in September or shortly thereafter is something quite a bit along the lines that Hiatt writes about in this editorial: essentially a modified version of the Iraq Study Group's plan.

    That means setting a date to begin a major pull-out of U.S. troops, perhaps 120,000 of them out by September 2008, with a residual force of 30-40,000 left in the country indefinitely. The debate on this will no doubt be sharp. But moderate-conservative Democrats in the Senate and half to three-fourths of the Blue Dog Democrats (and possibly a handful of others who don't call themselves Blue Dogs) will see this halfway, half-assed kind of withdrawal as the proper approach. This may play well in the heartland, too.

    This new direction will be given a great big kiss of bipartisan approval and the more "radical" position of a rapid and complete withdrawal (or complete except for a force left in Iraqi Kurdistan as a temporary bulwark against Turkish or Iranian adventurism there) will be lost in all the congratulations that will be passed around. Mister Bush will sign it with much fanfare.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:20:20 PM EST
    And if it was BINDING it might evenbe a favorable development.

    Since it is sure to NOT be binding, it would be just another cave-in.

    You do not need to reaqd my refrain on NOT spending as the ony way to end the war while Bush is President.

    I wish you and others would get behind that idea.


    George Bush will not (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:23:24 PM EST
    get behind any such proposal, even if non-binding, IMHO.

    I should have been clear ... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:33:59 PM EST
    ...that my final sentence was snark.

    "The Phony Debate"? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:12:43 AM EST
    Hiatt picked an apt title for his article. He'd love the debate to be how to continue the occupation instead of how to end it.

    Sure (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:17:29 AM EST
     But my point is, and maybe ignoring him would make the point more effectively, Fred Hiatt is no longer a part of the debate on this.

    I hope people understand that the all out war on Harry Reid by the WaPo Opinion pages is due to the fact that HArry Reid has decided that they are irrelevant.

    Broder and Hiatt and Richard Cohen and the rest willbe getting shriller and shriller as the debate goes on without them.


    They will stomp their feet (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    and pout and cry as loud as they can. Just like trolls here do. Because they are just as irrelevant, and they know it.

    Ignore them all (none / 0) (#6)
    by aztrias on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 12:34:58 PM EST
    Fred and a host of DC Pundits are far out-of-sync with the nation.  

    Our elites have a credibility problem and need some face saving political gesture by the Dems.

    Reid is not offering them a fig leaf.  He is forcing the Iraq debate as a "black and white" issue -- no more false shades of gray or six  month procrastinations.


    Excellent comment (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:20:56 PM EST

    An Idiot For Sure (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    And a long record of being wrong.  But somehow I doubt that WaPo readers are canceling their subscriptions, just yet. He hasn't lost his public.

    It is a good indicator that Reid is doing something that is right and effective. As the Dems push on using their long dormant muscles I am sure that Hiatt's pathetic shrill will increase in volume.

    WaPo Circulation is dropping (none / 0) (#5)
    by aztrias on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 12:28:31 PM EST
    I believe the Posts' circulation (and profit) is dropping.  WA DC is a liberal town and I doubt Fred's "I heart Bush" editorials help.

    yes, he is an idiot, (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 12:55:55 PM EST
    but a highly compensated idiot, as are his idiot compadres. maureen dowd and frank rich are idiots, also highly compensated, also wrong for the past 15 years. oddly enough, considering their "irrelevancy", none of them have been fired.

    they may be irrelevant (and i'm not saying they aren't), but unlike you and jeralyn, they have  two still significant platforms, from which to bray their irrelevancies to the still reading masses.

    supposedly, p.t. barnum once said, "never underestimate the stupidy of the public." the wp & nyt's have taken this to heart, and they never, ever do.

    No need to get snippy (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    I meant on the Iraq question.

    I know you will pursue impeachment whatever I think.

    BTW, I do hope that you are as willing to have your mind changed as I am as I am now a hardened inherent contempt supporter.

    I'm always willing to change my ... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    ...mind. But, as regards impeachment, the window of opportunity is only open for a few more months at best.

    Well (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 01:55:30 PM EST
    I won't debate impeachment with you anymore but I am happy to styand side by side woth you and Kagro on inherent contempt.

    I hope he makes it an obsession now. The condition are perfect for it now.

    I will be writing a great deal about it now.


    An obsession? I'd say he ... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Meteor Blades on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 02:08:22 PM EST
    ...was and remains the point man on the subject.

    Oh I agree (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    But he let up on it to obses . . ., erm, discuss impeachment almost exclusively.

    I would like to see him obses . . ., discuss, inherent contempt with the same regularity.

    My you are in a foul mood today.


    Keep thinking that (none / 0) (#20)
    by jarober on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:34:46 PM EST
    Meanwhile, the Congress' approval rating is 10 points lower than it was in 2006 going into the election.

    If it weren't for the bi-partisan gerrymandering and bi-partisan ballot access laws, I think both parties would be collapsing right now.

    However (none / 0) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Jul 21, 2007 at 09:47:12 PM EST
    If it weren't for the bi-partisan gerrymandering and bi-partisan ballot access laws, I think both parties would be collapsing right now.

    As it is, only that ONE party is imploding as we watch, even though they got to do all the gerrymandering, which by its nature is partisan.