Reply #26: fuck that guy

[Wetzelbill]

Engage the war on terror in a serious way? Besides the misconception that it's only some rabid Left-Wing faction that thinks that way, these guys in the media have some gall in deciding who is serious and who is not. The mere fact that any of these guys thought Bush, a lifelong failure, was in some way a credible candidate is ridiculous. The other fact that these guys never challenged or recognized the invasion Iraq as the pure idiocy that is was is even more ridiculous. When Gregory wants to point out the virtues of being serious and tough about the war on terror, then maybe he should look at the latest NIE and Bush's miserable record on the war on terror. Al-Qaeda stronger than ever is not being tough on terror. Supporting the biggest mistake in American foreign policy history is not being serious in the war on terror. And conflating Iraq and the war on terror, a rhetorical war at that, is intellectually dishonest to begin with. If that is the starting point of his argument, well then he started off flawed in the first place.

But this is classic Beltway stuff. David Gregory is alright for the most part, but these guys believe the world revolves around their every move. Nobody out in the real world really gives a shit. Only people extremely interested in politics reads columns by the beltway crowd or watches Hardball every night etc. David Gregory doesn't speak for most of America, but he thinks he can, even though his world is very small. And so goes down the line with the Howard Finemans, Joe Kleins, David Broders, Dan Balzs et al of the world.