What's the Matter with the Washington Post

Thursday's Washington Post features not one, but two soul-crushingly bad op-ed pieces on the politics of Iraq. The culprits are, to no one's surprise, Joe Lieberman and David Broder.

The first piece is classic Lieberman. In fact, he probably just took one of his old op-ed pieces, added a few lines to reference current events and hit print. He writes:

When politicians here declare that Iraq is "lost" in reaction to al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks and demand timetables for withdrawal, they are doing exactly what al-Qaeda hopes they will do, although I know that is not their intent.

You know what else plays right into al Qaeda's hands, Joe? Staying in Iraq. From their perspective, it's pretty much a win-win situation. And speaking of doing exactly what al Qaeda hopes we'll do, what do you think we were doing when we decided to invade Iraq in the first place? Is there any conceivable course of action we could have taken that would have done more to advance al Qaeda's cause?

Don't you love the way he takes a cheap shot at Harry Reid in that paragraph, too? Classy.

In typical Lieberman fashion, the piece ends with this bit of mindless sloganeering:

To me, there is only one choice that protects America's security -- and that is to stand, and fight, and win.

Good grief. What does that even mean? Stand where? Fight whom? Win how? It's obvious that Lieberman hasn't been following the plot for some time now. A few months ago, he was warning us that Iran is the Supreme Enemy and the real force behind everything that is wrong in Iraq. In this column, Iran isn't even mentioned. And while Lieberman says we need to win, as usual he doesn't bother to explain what constitutes victory or how this victory is supposed to be accomplished. But for some reason, people continue to take this man seriously.

Which brings me to Broder's column. It begins with this:

Here's a Washington political riddle where you fill in the blanks: As Alberto Gonzales is to the Republicans, Blank Blank is to the Democrats -- a continuing embarrassment thanks to his amateurish performance. If you answered " Harry Reid," give yourself an A. And join the long list of senators of both parties who are ready for these two springtime exhibitions of ineptitude to end.

Sometimes David Broder's columns read like a parody of a David Broder column. This is one of those times. Desperate to write something of the 'pox on both your houses' genre of political commentary--a genre which Broder pioneered and seems utterly incapable of deviating from--he has singled out Harry Reid and decided that Reid is somehow the Democratic equivalent of Alberto Gonzales.

Let's see, Alberto Gonzales is someone who owes his last four jobs (at least) to his personal friendship with George W. Bush. Gonzales is someone who, through his spinelessness and absentee leadership, has allowed the Justice Department to become an extension of the White House political office. This is a guy who had to clear his calendar for three full weeks so that he could practice telling a coherent story about his involvement in relatively recent events--and then bombed at the hearing. This is a guy who, by his own admission, has no idea what's going on in the agency he's supposed to be running. This is a man whose primary contribution to history was giving the President disastrously bad (and morally dubious) legal advice regarding the legality of torture.

So what exactly has Harry Reid done to warrant being equated with Gonzales? Well, according to Broder, Reid said that the war in Iraq is "lost" and he once called President Bush a "loser" and Alan Greenspan a "political hack." Yes, that's pretty much it. And somehow that proves that Reid is totally incompetent, just like Gonzales.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Reid certainly has his flaws, like most people, but he's actually been a pretty effective leader for the Democrats. He presided over some pretty tough times while the Democrats were the minority party, and managed to keep his caucus unified enough to thwart a lot of really bad things, like the President's push to privatize Social Security. He's even resorted to some pretty creative maneuvering when necessary. And under his stewardship, the Democrats managed to pick up a whole bunch of Senate seats, which is why he is now the majority leader.

But apparently none that factors into Broder's assessment of Reid's job performance. Nope, Reid is "incompetent" because he said something that we all know is true.

But here's the part that really made me want to shoot somebody in the face:

Given the way the Constitution divides warmaking power between the president, as commander in chief, and Congress, as sole source of funds to support the armed services, it is essential that at some point Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi be able to negotiate with the White House to determine the course America will follow until a new president takes office.

To say that Reid has sent conflicting signals about his readiness for such discussions is an understatement. It has been impossible for his own members, let alone the White House, to sort out for more than 24 hours at a time what ground Reid is prepared to defend.

Really? Is Reid's unwillingness to negotiate really the problem? Last time I checked, it was the President who was refusing to give an inch on anything. It was the President who made it clear that he has no interest in negotiating with Congress. Maybe that's worth a column.