WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a stir Thursday when he said Gen. Peter Pace failed in his job of providing Congress a candid assessment on the Iraq war and that he was concerned Gen. David Petraeus might be guilty of the same.
Democrats typically have shied from stinging comments on military officers, instead focusing on President Bush and administration policies in Iraq. Republicans responded vigorously to the change against Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
Said White House spokesman Tony Snow: "In a time of war, for a leader of a party that says it supports the military, it seems outrageous to be issuing slanders toward the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and also the man that is responsible for the bulk of military operations in Iraq."
Added Mike Duncan, chairman of the Republican National Committee: "Harry Reid doesn't understand that there are some lines you just don't cross."
I don't like Pace.
I mostly don't like Reid.
But more significantly:
Why does this sound like a setup for a Jon Stewart routine?
Stewart's continuing class on American civics (especially well illustrated by his take on goings on in the Senate early this week) has become my favorite news source (and readers of this blog know that's not for lack of alternatives consulted), and the most incisive political commentary going. Somehow, the clowns have all landed inside the beltway, and serious, adult thought is limited to Comedy Central (and occasionally NPR and selected public television).
I'm still advocating a movement to draft a Moyers & Stewart ticket.
Does anyone really believe the announced candidates would be better? We'd be informed, amused, and probably not unnecessarily killing people around the world.