Another AP Hit Job On Iraq

Here is the lede paragraph for this AP story (another one for which the authors didn’t have the courage to provide their names, apparently)…

Democratic leaders backed away from aggressive plans to limit President Bush's war authority, the latest sign of divisions within their ranks over how to proceed.

And once again, I give you Virginia Senator Jim Webb from Sunday…

"The true issue here is the federal system," Webb said, "the notion of accountability of the executive branch to Congress for not having conducted itself properly in the diplomatic arena."

Once again, it must be pointed out that, in the process of conducting oversight of Iraq at long last, Congress, in response to overwhelmingly favorable public opinion, is trying to find a way to perform a “check and balances” function on a president who has never shown any interest in upholding the Constitution as required by his oath of office or respecting the separation of powers that is a critical component of our government.

THAT is the story. Not the internal machinations of the Democrats in Congress as they try to find a way to rein in a president who thinks he’s king just because we are in a state of war (the Dems have to get it together, sure, but that pales in importance).

Oh, and how’s this for some genuine AP snark?

The developments on both sides of the Capitol reflected a new level of disarray in Democratic ranks on Iraq. Swept into power by voters clamoring for an end to the war, Democrats have seen their efforts falter under a reality more complicated than they found on the campaign trail.

That reads like it came directly from the RNC.

And speaking of the Repugs, just how are they, as the primary architects of this fiasco, treated in the story? Do you even have to ask?

Internal divisions, Republican opposition and a president who -- while weakened -- still appears to have the dominant voice on the war have all left Democrats flailing for a way to change the war's course.

That’s it, ladies and gentlemen.

Our corporate media will never, never, never, never hold Bushco and the Repugs responsible for this horror.

Never (and as Atrios pointed out yesterday, Republicans want the war to go on and the Democrats want to end it; it’s that simple.)

It will ALWAYS be the fault of the “divided Democrats” who were elected to make everything right and bring sweetness and light to this epochal horror but were unsuccessful for two main reasons: 1) It is impossible, and 2) They, as yet, do not have enough of a majority in the Senate (and, if they are going to be continually blocked, then why should we not take this opportunity to boot Lieberman out, since he’s a Repug anyway though not officially by name?).

And with all due respect to Zbigniew Brzesinski, I think his comments about Congress “micromanaging” the war are instructive, but he’s not really in the middle of this fray, acting pretty much as an interested observer instead.

And how’s this for “giving the knife a final turn” at the end?

"The party's not unified. Until you control the executive branch, you really don't have a party -- you have all these independent actors," Lawrence Korb, a Reagan administration Defense Department official, said of the Democrats' plight.

Now really, do you expect someone sympathetic to the Repugs to say anything different (though I will note that an exception like Paul Craig Roberts does come along from time to time).

No, we and the Democrats will continually encounter Repug obstructionism in the form of war-friendly politicos and right-wing hatemongers like Cal Thomas calling the Democrats every name in the book (if Thomas wants to use Sgt. Daniel Dobson as his quote vehicle here, fine; I’ll use Pfc. Drew Merrell and Spec. Josh Lake here, then – how long does Thomas wish to continue this stupid little game?).

But God forbid that we are in the same state on November 2008 as now for a lot of reasons, one of which is that the Democrats will get blamed for not figuring out how to solve a mess they were handed by a regime that, as Webb pointed out above, has no interest in diplomacy or real governance of any kind.