Update [2006-4-9 13:38:29 by Armando]: SheriffBart in the comments points me to this:
MR. RUSSERT: Bipartisan. Let me show you what’s happening in Washington. Let me show you what’s happening in Washington. This is The Washington Post, hardly an organ for Republican views.
This diary shows Russert to be a fool or a knave or both.
Today's piece of embarrassing, shrill shillery by the Washington Post Editorial Board, no doubt led by its President, Fred Hiatt, is nothing new.
SusanG does an admirable job outlining the latest version, but for those of us who have watched Hiatt's hackery for the past couple of years, this is no surprise. I think a stroll down memory lane with Mr. Hiatt and Co. is in order.
April 2006:
When you think of the term "national security," what do you think of? That's right. Our nation's security. And last week, Democrats released their plan (pdf) to, "Protect America & Restore Our Leadership In The World." In today's Washington Post, Fred Hiatt weighs in with his reaction:
Throughout the plan, in fact, there is no discussion of values, of liberty or generosity, of free markets or foreign aid -- of any purpose for American leadership larger than self-protection.
In other words, the Democratic Party didn't offer a plan that mirrors George Bush's view of the world since it turned out Iraq didn't have WMD. Hiatt says:
The first thing you might notice is that the Democrats implicitly reject almost everything the Bush administration says about how Sept. 11 changed the world, or our perception of it.
Actually, Mr. Hiatt, I'd say the Democrats are implicity rejecting the gross incompetence of the entire Bush administration in a post 9/11 world.
November 13, 2005:
Cementing his place as a Bush media lackey of the first order, Fred Hiatt, the Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Post, reaches a new low - stooping to the New McCarthyism:
. . . Congress . . . pours most of its Iraq-related energy into allegations of manipulated intelligence before the war. "Those aren't irrelevant questions," says Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). "But the more they dominate the public debate, the harder it is to sustain public support for the war."
What Lieberman doesn't say is that many Democrats would view such an outcome as an advantage. Their focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush's war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategy -- to satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.
Many of them understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States as well as for Mahdi and his countrymen. But the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.
You no good SOB Hiatt. You have been irresponsible, grossly negligent, ingenuous and a Bush lackey on Iraq for 4 years now and you have the gall to write those words. You despicable McCarthyite cretin.
We're not supposed to say this anymore - but eff you. How dare you question the patriotism of people who are doing what YOU have failed to do - hold the Bush Administration to account? How dare you?
Your editorial page has always "clapped louder" at the behest of the Bush Administration. Now you dare to SMEAR Dems at the whistle of the worst President in history? How dare you sir?
As Joseph Welch famously said:
"You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
Fred Hiatt should immediately resign his position. He has no credibility to comment on any issue.
More on the flip.
November 20, 2005:
The Washington Post Editorial Board has a lot of nerve. Last weekend, the Editor WaPo Editorial Page and a member of the Washington Post Editorial Board, wrote a column which slandered Democrats:
What Lieberman doesn't say is that many Democrats would view [loss of support for the Iraq Debacle] as an advantage. Their focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush's war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategy -- to satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.
Many of them understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States . . . [b]ut the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.
It was an outrageous false smear - accusing Dems of putting political gain before the good of the country. The New McCarthyism at its worst.
Today the Washington Post publishes an editorial decrying the tone of the debate on Iraq, a tone that developed as a result of Republicans taking their cues from Fred Hiatt himself:
A SERIOUS congressional debate about Iraq is essential at a time when public support for the mission is falling and the danger of failure seems great. Aggressive challenges to the Bush administration's military and political strategy -- even calls for an immediate withdrawal of troops, such as that made by Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) on Thursday -- must be part of that democratic discussion. Yet what we've mainly seen during the past two weeks is a shameful exercise in demagoguery and name-calling.
I agree. The namecalling and slander of the Republicans and Fred Hiatt has been shameful and demagogic.
On Iraq:
The WaPo Ed Board is shameless. No different than the WSJ Ed Board, and they lie just as much:
In a certain sense, this death threat should bring comfort to Americans fighting in Iraq and to the Iraqis struggling to finish their delayed constitution, which is supposed to be ready on Monday. Had al Qaeda set out to prove to a growing number of doubters that the war in Iraq really is about democracy -- and not about oil, hubris or imperialism -- its leaders couldn't have done so more clearly.
Are you effing kidding me? I mean, I am truly speechless. Repeat after me WaPo, Al Qaida was NOT in Iraq. They were supported by the Taliban and Pakistan! Democracy? Not "mushroom clouds?!" You liars. An arm of the BushCo liars is all you are now.
On the Iraq Constitution Deadline:
I have said it before. I say it again now: The WaPo Editorial Board is nothing but a lying shill group for BushCo on Iraq. No different than the WSJ Ed Board or the Moonie Times. Compare this editorial from Saturday August 13:
But the al Qaeda statement also illustrates the extraordinary importance of completing the constitution as soon as possible: If anything, the importance of finishing as close as possible to the original Aug. 15 deadline is greater this week than last. While a day or two's delay might not be tragic, a much longer one could plunge the country into greater chaos, particularly if the constitution's insurgent opponents begin to feel that their strategy is working. American, European and Arab leaders should, over the next few days, focus all possible effort on persuading, cajoling and arm-twisting the Iraqis into a compromise. The future of Iraqi democracy depends on it.
With their editorial today:
THE DEADLINE for completing a draft of Iraq's new constitution was missed yesterday to the disappointment of Iraqis and American officials who had hoped that Monday would represent another major step toward full Iraqi sovereignty. But the slip in the schedule should not be viewed -- at least at this stage -- as a permanent obstacle on the road to an Oct. 15 referendum, the Dec. 15 national elections and a constitutional government beginning Dec. 31. The negotiators, finding themselves stuck on key issues, did not throw up their hands and quit the process. Instead, they requested, and received from the National Assembly, a one-week extension to produce a final draft of a permanent constitution. The alternatives to a seven-day delay would have been worse.
Here's my question, and what if it is delayed to the 29th? Or September 6th? Or September 13th? Will such delays be "fatal"? Each and every one of these deadlines is as artificial as was the August 15th deadline, you know, the date that the "future of Iraqi democracy depend[ed]" on.
That's the problem with being a shill -- you'll twist yourself into such a posture of ridiculousness you can't even tell when your head has been firmly tucked into your nether regions. You weren't seeking the light anyway.
Alito Shilling:
Fred Hiatt's Washington Post Editorial Board, in a move that could surprise no one who is familiar with its Bush loving ways, urged the confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito the other day. What was particularly funny and indicative of just how in the tank Hiatt and Co. are was their straight from the GOP talking points invocation of Alito's "judicial modesty":
Humility is called for when predicting how a Supreme Court nominee will vote on key issues, or even what those issues will be, given how people and issues evolve. But it's fair to guess that Judge Alito will favor a judiciary that exercises restraint and does not substitute its judgment for that of the political branches in areas of their competence. That's not all bad. The Supreme Court sports a great range of ideological diversity but less disagreement about the scope of proper judicial power. The institutional self-discipline and modesty that both Judge Alito and Chief Justice Roberts profess could do the court good if taken seriously and applied apolitically.
One can only laugh at this. Surely Hiatt and Co. do not believe this of Alito. Roberts has no record so you can plausibly believe anything you want about him. Not so Alito who has a record of judicial activism that is undeniable.
. . . Today Ruth Marcus, who is on the Hiatt and Co. team, writes a column that shreds the empty GOP talking points that Hiatt chose to publish:
For even the most responsible, well-intentioned judge, respectful of precedent and -- to use the adjective du jour -- modest in his conception of the judicial role, is called on to make, well, judgment calls, filling gaps in legislation or interpreting capacious constitutional phrases. The higher up the judicial ladder, the harder the cases -- and the more important the judge's underlying worldview, judicial philosophy and constitutional vision. There is, in short, a soul inside every judicial machine.
Justice Benjamin Cardozo, lecturing on the judicial role in 1921, described the inescapable, hidden forces tugging at judges -- "inherited instincts, traditional beliefs, acquired opinions" -- forces, that, he said, produced "an outlook on life, a conception of social needs . . . which, when reasons are nicely balanced, must determine where choice shall fall."
. . . In a provocative essay in the November 2005 Harvard Law Review, Richard Posner, a federal appeals court judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, makes an even more unvarnished version of that argument. Much of the high court's constitutional decision making, Posner asserts, is inherently political.
As much as a court "is supposed to be tethered to authoritative texts," Posner writes, the Supreme Court often finds itself facing issues to which "the constitutional text and history, and the pronouncements in past opinions, do not speak clearly." It is in that "broad open area where the conventional legal materials of decision run out, and the Justices, deprived of those crutches, have to make a discretionary call."
Marcus' closing paragraph is dripping with irony in light of the vacuous editorial published by Hiatt and Co.:
What has been so disappointing about the nominees' testimony is their unwillingness to engage in this discussion in an honest, meaningful way. What has been so maddening about the questioning is the senators' inability to penetrate their platitudes or robotic restatements of the law. Because thinking hard isn't enough -- for a silly old bear or a smart new justice.
Ms. Marcus may consider asking her Editorial Board colleagues how they discerned Alito's worthiness and um, "modesty" so easily before being so dismissive of the senators' "platitudes." It is rather maddening.
More of the sordid WaPo Ed Board history can be found here and here.