For every great presidential move

There's a pack of braying asses lining up to criticize it. After Bush's brillant trip to Baghdad yesterday, the stooges olf the left have begun taking potshots. Thus, we have, among others:

Philip Taubman, Washington bureau chief of the New York Times, whinging about not bringing more reporters: "In this day and age, there should have been a way to take more reporters. People are perfectly capable of maintaining a confidence for security reasons. It's a bad precedent." Yeah, making sure the New York Times, or Pravda, as Tom says, is along is the White House's first concern. never mind that everyone, even Joe Lockhart (see below) agrees there was no way to bring more people.

Clinton press secretary Joe Lockhart, who sees through the sham to the President's manipulative ways: "This is a president who has been unwilling to provide his presence to the families who have suffered but thinks nothing of flying to Baghdad to use the troops there as a prop." Sorry to correct you, there, Joe, but he visited the familes of troops on Monday. But he didn't say he felt their pain so, you know, it doesn't count.

Clinton-worshiping author and former White House aide Sidney Blumenthal, carping "The message to the Iraqis is Bush doesn't think their country is secure. It underscores the insecurity, and it conveys insularity." (The quote is from the middle of this story, and for a good fisking of Blumenthal's book see here) Well, Sid, some Iraqis clearlyfeel that way, but to be frank, the country isn't secure. We're trying to do that now, but people like you--and Missus Clinton, who showed up in Baghdad today and called on the UN to come back--aren't helping.

There's nothing worse than seeing someone you hate do something good, is there fellas?
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:13 PM