David Broder Hails Bush and Blair "Courage"

David Broder makes another original contribution to the genre of astoundingly bad punditry in today's Washington Post. His column, titled "Western Allies In the Twilight", is a sentimental tribute to Bush's and Blair's war-like courage. No, really.

Broder writes:

The 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington and the 7/7 London subway and bus bombings shook both Bush and Blair from any sense of complacency and armed both men with a conviction that their preeminent mission was to combat the forces behind those assaults. Both men now believe -- no, are passionately and permanently convinced -- that the terrorist threat from radical Islamists is one that must be resisted at all costs. (Bold mine)

Set aside the "9/11 shook Bush from any sense of complacency" spin, which strikes me as patently absurd. Focus instead on the words Broder uses to describe the not-complacent Bush and Blair: they were "armed" with a conviction that their "preeminent mission" was to "combat" Islamic extremists, who had to be "resisted at all costs".

The "Mission Accomplished" military fantasy world that George W. Bush inhabits? David Broder lives there too. Broder actually appears to regard Bush as some sort of virtuous military action figure.

Here, Broder approvingly quotes Blair:

"It's not about us remaining true to the course that we've set out because of the alliance with America. It is about us remaining steadfast because what we are fighting, the enemy that we are fighting, is an enemy that is aiming its destruction at our way of life and anybody who wants that way of life. And in those circumstances, the harder they fight, the more determined we must be to fight back. If what happens is, the harder they fight, the more our will diminishes, then that's a fight we're going to lose. And this is a fight we can't afford to lose."

This is the kind of moronic wingnut stuff that Bush says all the time. It is moronic in that (1) it makes a carricature of Islamic extremists' goals -- no, their primary aim is not to destroy the American/Western way of life; (2) it vastly exaggerates the threat posed by Islamic extremists -- no, these people do not have the ability to destroy the American way of life; and (3) it assumes that the only alternative to Bush's and Blair's catastrophic policy is to capitulate to the evildoers, convert to Islam and impose sharia law in America. Here is Broder's take on what Blair had to say:

Those are brave words, and a grateful Bush spoke from the heart when he said, "What I know is the world needs courage. And what I know is this good man is a courageous man."

Those are brave words! Which brings us to Broder's conclusion:

History will record that both of them saw the threat to the West posed by terrorism and responded courageously. The wisdom of their policy and the conduct of their governments are not likely to be judged as highly.

Will history "record" that they "saw the threat" and "responded courageously"? It seems to me that history's judgment will be that they thoroughly misjudged the threat and completely bungled the response. But was it a courageous bungle? That seems to be what Broder is suggesting by sounding a skeptical note about the wisdom of the Bush/Blair policy, after having drooled all over Bush/Blair's manliness. Does that make any sense? What exactly was "courageous" about Bush's and Blair's reponse to the threat posed by Islamic extremism?

David Broder: So Dumb it Hurts to Read His Stuff

David Broder has a columm in today's Washington Post titled "A Chance for Unity on Iraq". The title tells you all you need to know about Broder's worldview: Broder thinks the constant goal is "unity," that "partisanship" and "divisive debate" are bad. Broder's take on Bush's Surge plan? Cut out the divisive debate and get with the program!

Broder writes:

The change of command in Iraq offers an opportunity to move past the divisive domestic debate over the deployment of more troops to Baghdad and instead put the pressure where it belongs -- on the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

That's Broder for you! While others debate the actual Iraq War debacle, Broder is busy hunting for an opportunity to "move past the divisive domestic debate over the deployment of more troops." "Moving past" the substance of the Surge proposal is a good thing, because it ends "divisive domestic debate". "Divisive domestic debate" is inherently bad, because it is inconsistent with achieving "unity." How do you achieve unity in circumstances where the President is hell-bent on escalating a catastrophic and massively unpopular war that has just been specifically repudiated in an election? Why, just cut out all the divisiveness and support the President's policy!

Here is Broder's argument, in detail: if the Democrats and those Republicans who have abandoned Bush start supporting the Surge plan and Bush's conduct of the Iraq War, then Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki could be threatened with the loss of that support if he doesn't accede to American demands. Got that? Start supporting the War, so we can use the prospect of the loss of that support as leverage against the Iraqi government. Broder writes:

In effect, [General] Petraeus is offering a way to convert the opposition to the war that is growing in both Republican and Democratic ranks into leverage on Maliki. Together, they can hold the prime minister to his pledge to go after all the combatants -- Shiites as well as Sunnis -- and to provide the troops for the fight.

Yes, that's Broder's argument. "Convert the opposition to the war" into "leverage," i.e., convert the opposition to the war into support for the war, which will yield "leverage."

Here is Broder's concluding paragraph:

The challenge is immense, but for a change, there is a chance to get the full weight of our government pulling in the same direction. Congress ought to seize the opportunity.

There you have it. Broder always thinks the goal is to achieve "unity," to have "the full weight of our government pulling [sic] in the same direction." Broder doesn't particularly care what that direction is -- he doesn't care about the actual policies, except to the extent that they present an "opportunity to unite."

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it speaks volumes about the state of political punditry in America that a guy as vacuous as David Broder is widely regarded as the "Dean of Washington journalists."

Telegrams from Outer Space: David Broder Edition

David Broder's column in yesterday's Washington Post, titled "Facing Up to Reality", is a masterpiece. The genre? Unintended irony. Like David Brooks, Broder does his best work by accident.

Broder writes that just about everyone saw the Democrats' victory coming:

Never was a political wipeout better advertised in advance than the one that hit the Republican Party on Tuesday and cost Don Rumsfeld his job. From the first of my political soundings in the Midwest in early spring, it was clear that the public's frustration with the war in Iraq, the inept performance of the Bush administration after Hurricane Katrina, and the stunning partisanship and tawdriness of the Republican Congress was reaching explosive levels.

He then notes that Bush and Rove are among the only people on the planet who did not see this coming:

The only people who seemed oblivious to the warning signs were President Bush and his political adviser, Karl Rove. Against all evidence, including the warnings of other Republicans, they kept insisting that Republicans would hold the House and Senate. Bush said at his news conference yesterday, "I knew we were going to lose seats," but he acknowledged he was shocked that the twin themes he kept pushing -- taxes and security -- didn't save the GOP from "a thumping."

Broder then uses Bush's obliviousness about political reality in the United States as an occasion to question Bush's grasp of reality in Iraq. Fair enough. But here's what Broder comes up with:

The Democrats will offer Bush alternatives for Iraq and so, presumably, will the Baker-Hamilton commission when it meets with him next week and issues its report in December. James A. Baker III and Lee Hamilton and their colleagues are perfectly positioned to help break the deadlock on that policy -- if Bush is looking for an out.

The question is whether a president who couldn't recognize the reality of an approaching political landslide is any more discerning about spotting a policy and political disaster in the making in a far-off land.

The answer is not at all clear.

The question is whether Bush will be able to spot a policy and political disaster in the making? The answer is not at all clear? Broder may be the only guy on this planet who still hasn't figured out that Bush's Iraq adventure is not a potential disaster or a disaster "in the making," but a complete and actual disaster right now. And what are we supposed to make of Broder's statement that Bush's ability to be "discerning" with respect to Iraq is an open question that will be resolved next week?

"Facing up to Reality" indeed!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it really says something about contemporary journalism and punditry that a guy as vacuous as David Broder can achieve near-universal recognition as the "Dean" of Washington journalists.

"Partisan Bickering" and Getting Out of Iraq

David Ignatius has a column in today's WaPo titled "The Hard Way Out", outlining what he sees as the two "promising paths" for exiting Iraq. The column is worth reading, if only because it vividly illustrates the inability of many "elite" pundits to think clearly about America's options in Iraq.

Here is the first promising exit path indentified by Ignatius:

The first path is a more federal Iraq -- with power devolved to the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. But this presupposes a national government strong enough to formulate rules for, say, the sharing of oil revenue. If such a national framework existed, Iraq wouldn't be such a mess in the first place. Another tricky problem is stabilizing the Sunni areas that would be a potential safe haven for terrorists. If the Iraqi army can't control these areas, the only alternative may be, in effect, a Sunni militia drawn from the ranks of the insurgency. U.S. officials have been meeting secretly outside Iraq with insurgent leaders in an effort to draw them into such a framework. (Emphasis added)

Why does Ignatius find this path "promising," given his acknowledgment that it presupposes an Iraqi "national framework" that does not exist? What are the prospects for creating such a framework, which Ignatius recognizes is a necessary condition for the success of promising path number one? He doesn't say.

Promising path number two:

The second exit ramp passes through Iran and Syria. Talking with Tehran and Damascus could be helpful in stabilizing Iraq, but we should recognize at the outset that their influence is limited -- and that it may carry an unacceptable price. Iran's goal in Iraq is a decisive Shiite victory and Sunni submission, but that's a formula for continuing civil war -- and in any event, it's not an agenda the United States should endorse. Syria could be helpful in curbing al-Qaeda in Iraq, but there are limits and drawbacks to Syrian power -- as was clear during its long and brutal occupation of Lebanon.(Emphasis added)

So the second promising path passes through Tehran, which Ignatius says has as it central goal in Iraq a "decisive Shiite victory" that America should not endorse and that amounts to a "formula for endless civil war." And in any case we need to acknowledge at the outset that its influence is limited. How does that remotely constitute a "promising path?" Plainly, it doesn't.

Now consider Ignatius's conclusion:

The real opportunity presented by the Baker-Hamilton process is that it's bipartisan. To get most American troops out of Iraq over the next year will require more patience at home, and a lot less partisan bickering. And our politicians will need strong stomachs: They must manage an orderly retreat under fire. There is a path out of this mess, but we will be lying if we call it victory.

So, to summarize: there are two "promising paths" for getting U.S. troops out of Iraq, both of which Ignatius acknowledges are unrealistic, and what's required in order to accelerate the progress of U.S. troops along one or both of these unrealistic promising paths out of Iraq is "more patience at home" and "less partisan bickering." This is pretty incredible stuff.

Ignatius skates right by the core reality determining America's options in Iraq at this point: the United States does not have the ability to control the political outcome in Iraq, and is losing its remaining influence at an accelerating rate. The U.S. can begin redeploying troops (along the lines of the Levin-Reed or Murtha plans, or the substantially similar plan I assume Baker-Hamilton will propose after the November election) sooner or later. The main reason for beginning redeployment later rather than sooner is to give political cover to the White House and its Republican "stay the course" backers. That isn't a legitimate reason to postpone redeployment, and it isn't a consideration worthy of "patience at home". If pointing this out is "partisan," fine. Let's have more partisanship. Phony "bipartisanship" is one of the factors that made Bush's Iraq fiasco possible in the first place.

Richard Cohen: Vacuous and Contemptible

I haven't done any research on this, but to my knowledge nobody has ever accused WaPo columnist Richard Cohen of being well-informed, intellectually curious, talented, insightful or interesting. But his latest column, a piece on why Barack Obama should run for President titled, "Why Not Obama?", manages to be both vacuous and contemptible. The highlights:

Life itself -- its hard lessons -- cautions me to look with consummate cynicism on the Obama trial balloon. After all, the man has been in the United States Senate for a mere two years, and before that he served -- with distinction, we are told -- in the Illinois legislature, where, it seems, just staying out of jail is distinction enough. We know little about Obama's political performance, since he has performed so little. He is only 45, which is about the age of some of my suits. On the world stage, he would be a child.

Shorter Richard Cohen: I haven't bothered to do any research on Obama's record in the Senate or in the Illinois legislature, but I'll join everybody else in noting that he doesn't have much experience. But in Cohen's case, it's "consummate cynicism" based on "hard lessons" learned from "Life itself" talking, so you'd better pay attention. Never mind that this consummate cynicism only kicks in when it happens to agree with the conventional wisdom du jour. For starters, where was all that world-weary cynicism when Cohen was working himself into a bellicose frenzy in support of the Iraq war?

Cohen continues:

And yet I cheer his announcement that he might announce he is going to announce -- something like that. I say this not just because I have been following his career out of the corner of my eye -- my, my, ain't he a natural! -- but because I've actually been reading his speeches. The one he gave on the role of religion in politics was as smart a speech as I've ever read. It's the sort of thing John F. Kennedy could have given, only his would have been written by someone else, probably Ted Sorensen.

I wasn't crazy about Obama's religion speech. It struck me as a fairly maudlin embrace of public religiosity for the purpose of currying favor with the religious right. But that's neither here nor there. Cohen liked the speech, fair enough. But it's the sort of thing John F. Kennedy could have given? Except Ted Sorensen ("Ask not what your country can do for you...") would have written it? Meaning what exactly? I guess it means that Cohen really liked Obama's speech, and he's pimping the idea of Obama as a charismatic Democratic savior, so there's a natural tie-in with another speech he really liked by an established charismatic Democratic savior. But the comparison is ridiculous, and not just because religiosity was totally foreign to Kennedy's style. Kennedy was calling on people in the United States and throughout the world to transcend self-interest and work together to make the world a better place. Obama was saying "Vote for me, I'm not like those other Democrats who don't appreciate the legitimate role of religion in public life." Here's a link to the JFK speech. Here's a link to the Obama speech. JFK's inaugural address is to Obama's speech what The Brothers Karamazov is to The Pelican Brief.

But it gets better:

I cheer also because Obama is an African American -- an African father, an American mother. For someone like him to be a presidential candidate -- maybe even president -- says oodles about this country. After eight years of George W. Bush and his narcissistic foreign policy -- me, me, us, us -- it would be great to have a president who presents a different message just by his complexion and who compensates, if anything can, for how Iraq has tarnished America's reputation, particularly in the Third World.(Emphasis mine)

Cohen's crude and moronic tokenism pretty much speaks for itself, so I'll move on.

Here is the best part:

But mostly I want Obama to run because he would come into the race with no baggage on Iraq. Not from him would we hear excuses about how he was misled by the Bush administration into thinking there were weapons of mass destruction there. Obama not only was against the war when he ran for the Senate but he can claim -- as could the 21 Democratic senators who voted against the war resolution -- that it was possible to accept the "facts" at the time and still see that the war was unnecessary, if not downright stupid. It just makes me wince every time I hear John Kerry or John Edwards or Joe Biden or Chris Dodd or Hillary Clinton say they were misled, fooled, lied to or some other version of seduced and abandoned -- otherwise they would have voted the right way. This is disingenuous.

So it makes Cohen "wince" to hear this, does it? He thinks it is disingenuous for these politicians to claim they were had by the Bush Administration? Now see if you don't find it a bit disingenuous for Cohen to level this criticism at Kerry, Edwards, Biden, Dodd and Clinton given that he himself wrote this on February 6, 2003, on the eve of war, in the wake of Colin Powell's over-the-top performance at the U.N.:

The evidence he presented to the United Nations -- some of it circumstantial, some of it absolutely bone-chilling in its detail -- had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise. [...]

North Korea probably already has nuclear bombs. Iran may have a nuclear weapons program. Pakistan has the bomb, India and China too. All kinds of states -- stable, unstable and just plain nutty -- are making weapons of mass destruction. Pretty soon, any collection of fanatics with a chemistry set will pose a horrific threat. The world is steadily becoming less and less secure. Now is not the time for the United Nations to flinch.

As with Tevye, there is no "other hand" when it comes to Iraq. If anyone had any doubt, Powell proved that it has defied international law -- not to mention international norms concerning human rights -- and virtually dared the United Nations to put up or shut up. There is no other hand. There is no choice.

Did you get that? "Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude" that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. What did Cohen say at the time about the prospect of war on Iraq? "There is no choice."

[Minor edits after initial posting.]

Broder Watch: Still Substance-Free, but Interesting Development

David Broder's got a new column up at the WaPo today, titled "New Star Among the Democrats," about rising Dem star Deval Patrick, who seems poised to win the governorship of Massachusetts.

In one respect, it's a typical Broder column: there's absolutely no reasoning in it. But today's op-ed marks a departure from textbook Broderism in that it doesn't contain any conclusory statements by Broder about what ails the republic (Democratic incivility) or What Must be Done (restore bi-partisanship by handing the reins of government over to independent-minded "moderate" pro-war right wingers like Maverick Saint John McCain and Joe Lieberman).

This is the essence of Broderism: a series of statements by Broder of his political preferences, for which he gives no reasons or supporting arguments, combined with quotations and descriptions that purport to document whether his preferences are on the way to being realized or not. By contrast, in his latest column, he doesn't state any political preferences, so readers are left with quotations and descriptions of Deval Patrick. Fair enough, but what's this doing on the op-ed page?

I'll say it again: it really says something about contemporary journalism and punditry that a guy as vacuous as David Broder can achieve near-universal recognition as the "Dean" of Washington journalists.

Substance Doesn't Matter: Broder Edition

David Broder writes another characteristically boneheaded op-ed piece in today's WaPo, titled The Tide's In for Independents. It's the usual stuff Broder mails in from the counter-reality he inhabits in which America's problems are, in order of importance: (i) Democratic incivility and (ii) a reckless Bush presidency that is destroying the "traditional conservative heritage."

As Josh Marshall points out, Broder doesn't mention the torture debate at all in his latest column, let alone the fact that the "compromise" was in effect the Bush position, despite having pointed to Independent Maverick McCain's Brave Strand as a watershed moment in the transformation of the American political landscape in his previous boneheaded column. Here's why I'm not surprised.

The essential feature of Broderism is a disregard for political substance. I'm not a mind reader, and I don't pretend to have any insight into (or interest in) how the guy comes to his views as a psychological matter. But if you read a few of his columns, you'll see a pattern: the reasons he gives for the views and preferences that he expresses generally have nothing to do with substantive issues. War, peace, Iraq, Iran, the economy, social security, whatever. He doesn't seem to care.

In his last column, Independence Days, Broder did cite a substantive issue -- the Geneva Conventions / torture issue. But read his column carefully. He wasn't arguing that McCain et al. deserved support because of the particular stand they were taking on that issue. Rather, Broder's argument was that the defiance of their own party by the Mavericks was important in that it "...signaled the emergence of an independent force in elections and government." And what was the meaning of the Rebel Revolt? That torture is wrong? That America is better than this? Er, not even close. Broder: "What it really signals is a new movement in this country -- what you could rightly call the independence party." For Broder, the particular issue at hand was important only to the extent it reinforced the "signal" the Independents were sending: "This movement is not new, but the moral scale of the issue -- torture -- and the implications for both constitutional and international law give it an epic dimension, even if it is ultimately settled by compromise." Epic moral scale bonus points in the cause of restoring civility to Washington!

It follows from his disregard for political substance that Broder isn't interested in evidence or information that has probative value in relation to political substance. Since Broder doesn't particularly care about substantive political issues (again, going by the reasons he gives for the views that he expresses), it shouldn't be surprising that evidence and information don't interest him.

It really says something about contemporary American political life that a guy as vacuous as David Broder can achieve near-universal recognition as the "Dean" of Washington journalists. But I think he's playing out his last bit of string. Broder's "whither civility" schtick worked when you had a grownup like Bill Clinton running the show, so people could convince themselves that Democrats and Republicans were all the same, that Gore was no different from W, that lying about a blowjob was the most important thing in the world and all that.