Previously, I'd written about framing and reframing discussions. In particular, I think the interpretive frame implied by the phrase "War on Terror" implicitly cedes the debate on national security to Bush, because it allows Bush and the mighty Wurlitzer to make the invasion of Iraq into an important part of such a general war against all evil forces. The proper response should be to speak only of a War against al Qaeda, in which light the invasion of Iraq can only be seen as failed and costly distraction.
Last night, Richard Clarke appeared on 60 Minutes to state that the administration immediately post 9/11 sought excuses to go after Iraq, and even dismissed and disregarded the intelligence that it was al Qaeda behind the attacks. While I didn't expect Dem discipline to be perfect in rising up afterwards to use this stunning story to begin to reframe the discussion, I hoped that at least some Dems would rise to the occasion.
I certainly didn't expect Joe Biden and Holy Joe Lieberman to go on record attempting to discredit Clarke.
DHinMI's angry letter to Lieberman is now on the front page. He's not in Connecticut but wrote Lieberman anyway, so I think I'll do the same, even though I'm in New York—and I figure I'll send a tart note to Joe Biden as well.
But how on earth can the party apparatus let nonsense like this pass? Biden and Lieberman are prominent figures with national name recognition. Could it be that the Dems don't wan to win in November?
I need a drink. Very, very badly.