MTP marks Iraq War Anniversary with...... TOM DELAY?

I've been meaning to get this one out, but other topics have been winning out and taking up my writing time lately. But, trust me, this one's worth a few minutes of your time...

Oh, have I been waiting to blog about this one. Before I get into it, I'll offer this qualifier: I love Meet the Press. I love it that the show's been on the air since 1947. I love it that it brings political figures into my living room every Sunday morning about issues that matter to me. I've been watching MTP for years. Rare is the week that goes by where I don't either watch it, or listen to a Podcast of it. On balance, I like Tim Russert, who's been hosting the show for 15 years. However, I don't always agree with his choice of guests. I don't know what goes into booking various guests on his show, or who is responsible for booking them, but whoever that person is ought to be fired for booking the guests it did before the four-year anniversary of the Iraq War's start.

Eight days ago, this was MTP's line-up during the show's last 1/2 hour to debate the war:

On the Democratic side, Russert bagged Tom Andrews, a former House member who has been out of Congress for the last 12 years, but the leader of Win Without War; and Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Vice Admiral and Naval Academy graduate, who just happens to have a Ph.D. in Political Economy and Government from Harvard University.

Okay, not bad. Russert could have done better than Andrews, but not bad.

However, on the Republican side of the debate, Russert had on Tom DeLay, the disgraced former House Majority Leader who resigned from Congress under federal indictment, and Richard Perle, who, as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee from 2001-2003, was one of the principle architects of the Iraq War.

Wow, nice choices, Tim. Wasn't Donald Rumsfeld available?

If you didn't get a chance to see this particular episode of MTP, you've got to take 15 minutes to watch this circus. I can't post it here myself, since I can't host videos directly on my blog since it's hosted on Blogger, and YouTube only lets users post clips that are 10 minutes or shorter. But, I did find a clip of the DeLay ridiculousness on Crooks and Liars. Get it by Clicking Here, and it should be the second or third entry down.



Air America Radio host Rachel Maddow took some pretty good swings at DeLay last Monday - above is a clip of her DeLay diatribe. I love Maddow - I listen to her show when I can, and I have her Podcasts loaded into my iPod, so I listen to them when I have time.

In case you can't view the video, here's a brief transcript. Try to read it without falling down in fits of laughter.

The entire segment starts out with DeLay's grandstanding (surprise)...

RUSSERT: And we're back. Welcome all. The war in Iraq four years old, and let me show you some of the numbers after the first four years. U.S. troops killed, 3,192; US troops wounded, 24,042. The cost is $351 billion. If you include budget requests, it would be about $500 billion. And the Iraqi civilian deaths, some 54,000.

Congressman DeLay, is the war in Iraq worth the cost in life and treasure?

DELAY: Well, you said it yourself, Tim. It's been four years since American has been attacked by these terrorists. We seem to forget that we are at war, and when you're at war, you've got to fight that war to win rather than fight the war for political posturing. We have been fighting that war. Sure, it--it's been tough. We've had to write a complete new war manual on how to fight terrorists that [sic] want to kill women and children. If you compared that note to, say, the Vietnam War in the same period of time, you're talking about much more in casualties and, and relative spending.

##

First off, someone needs to give "The Exterminator" a grammar lesson on the "that/who" rule. But, I wouldn't expect a rube like DeLay to know it - political character assassination is his speciality. If political hate speech and invective were knowledge, he'd have a Ph.D. Back to the show...

DeLAY: "...this is hard [referring to Democrats' desire to set a deadline for withdraw or redeployment], so I want to surrender."

SESTAK: Absolutely not.

DeLAY: That's exactly what it is.

SESTAK: You never just keep banging your head against the wall, we learn in the military. Is there a better way to go about it? And that's what this bill does is it takes the last leverage we have to make it happen.

RUSSERT: But setting a date for–is setting a date for withdrawal...

DeLAY: ...every step of the way, undermine–I think it's aiding and abetting the enemy. When you tell the enemy what your strategy is, that's aiding and abetting the enemy because they can use that strategy to come back and harm your soldiers.

SESTAK: Tim, I spent 31 years in the service of our nation leading men and women into combat in war. And I always assumed, at least I always hoped, that the men and women back here, the policy makers, day in and day out, were spending hours, weeks, debating about the best use of this national treasure. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said it best a few weeks ago when he said, as someone asked him about this debate and what's going on in the House, he said, "Our men and women of our military are educated. They understand the democratic process." I remember when working for President Clinton as director of defense policy, when I didn't agree with you, Tom, but that there was the Buyer Amendment to stop in a year any more funding for our troops in Bosnia. And then there was, in 1999, the effort not to place any more troops not–in Kosovo. While I may have disagreed with you, I respected your office, that that is the constitutional duty of Congress, to take pride for the common defense. [Emphasis Mine]

DeLAY: Joe, you're a congressman. Go back to Iraq and talk to those same soldiers and you'll get exactly a different response from those soldiers.

SESTAK: I talk to them, Tom. I talk to them all the time.

DeLAY: I do, too.

###

Does anyone honestly believe that Tom DeLay talks to soldiers in Iraq? Or Iraqis? That one's got b.s. written all over it.

A little more DeLay...

FMR. REP. ANDREWS: Tom, with all due respect, I think I'd be much more comfortable taking the military strategy advice of Admiral Sestak than, than Tom DeLay. And listen, you know, we in Washington love to talk about what's in the best interest of the, the people of Iraq. We've been doing this for years and years. Why don't we ask the people of Iraq what they think? If you ask the people...

DeLAY: Well, let's ask what's in the best interest of the American people.

ANDREWS: Well, ask the people--let's ask--let's ask the people of Iraq, OK?

DeLAY: No, let's ask the American people.

ANDREWS: What is--let's ask them first, OK? Because listen, they're the ones that have the most at stake. They're the ones that have the most at stake.

DeLAY: I'm more interested in the American people.

##

Evidently, since DeLay was forced to leave Congress under federal indictment, he isn't following polls too much anymore. A majority of the American people want us out of Iraq. If you pick up a newspaper other than The Washington Times or watched some television other than Fox State TV, you'd know that. (I believe the latest poll has Americans wanting to leave Iraq by just shy of 2/3 - it's at around 60 percent.)

But wait! There's more... (Feel like you're watching a Ginsu Knife commercial yet?

I'd be remiss if I didn't miss war criminal Richard Pearle, taking an Al Gore quote completely out of context, as reported by Media Matters:



HOWEVER, Gore STILL opposed going into Iraq.

Eh, I could go on an on about this memorable Meet the Press, but why bother? It did bug the living daylights out of me that Russert (or his superiors) decided to bring in Tom DeLay, so he could plug his piece of garbage tome. I wouldn't buy his book if someone paid me a grand to read it.

I counted Russert holding up the book at least three times (maybe more - I was doing stuff around the house as it was on). How annoying. Go on Fox News and plug your tripe.