Why Are We Back In Iraq?

Here's Dana Milbank "Washington sketching" for the Washington Post about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testifying at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee:

The attorney general entered the hearing room flanked by bodyguards and trailed by a phalanx of lawyers carrying thick briefing books. Gonzales, in an opening statement that mentioned "enemy" 10 times and "al Qaeda" 20 times, suggested that those who questioned the legality of the program were aiding the terrorists.

"Our enemy is listening, and I cannot help but wonder if they aren't shaking their heads in amazement at the thought that anyone would imperil such a sensitive program," he said. "How can anyone conclude that it is not necessary and appropriate to intercept al Qaeda phone calls?"

Nobody had concluded that, except perhaps for the demonstrator who shouted "You're a fascist!" at Gonzales.

Does Milbank laugh at his own stupid jokes?

While the demonstrator, Kevin Griffey - in my opinion - went overboard with the "f" term, and by disrupting the hearing probably did more harm than good, it's wrong for Milbank to jest that this American citizen "perhaps" believes that al Qaeda operatives should be allowed to go about their business, planning future terror attacks.

Note to demonstrators: Instead of making an ass out of your self by saying something stupid or over the top how about emulating these students who silently turned their backs to Gonzales at a recent speech he gave:

Milbank knows nothing about Kevin Griffey, but in his "Washington sketching" he thinks it's okay to theorize with no proof or quotes to back up his doggerel.

More "Washington sketching":

Democrats, worried about being branded terrorist-huggers, merely complained that they hadn't been consulted. "We make the laws," Leahy pleaded. "If you believe you need new laws, then come and tell us." Gonzales nodded, his lips pinched tightly.

Terrorist-huggers?

By writing that Democrats "worried" so "merely complained," Milbank is implying that they probably had concluded that something else.

Again with no proof or quotes to back that up.

While there was a pretend-controversy at the Washington Post regarding whether or not the title of Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing column was "confusing" to readers, I strongly urge the editors of the Washington Post to reconsider the title of Dana Milbank's column.

Milbank doesn't sketch.

Milbank caricatures.

And his crappy caricatures look nothing like the models that he's supposed to be sketching.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 2/07/2006 06:53:00 AM