goobers.jpg

And now we come to the part of our day where I call Fred Hiatt a bloviating fact challenged tool:

…This claim is directly contradicted by the Post's own reporting this morning, which states, "Foreign policy experts generally agree that Pelosi's dealings with Middle East leaders have not strayed far, if at all, from those typical for a congressional trip." Pelosi herself has "described the trip as little different than the visit paid to Syria the same week led by Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-VA)," and she went to great lengths to express her unity of purpose with President Bush on terrorism issues. The Post's own reporting today also cites several instances of members of Congress meeting with foreign leaders during the past 30 years. As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, in contrast with Pelosi's trip, previous congressional actions abroad attempted to directly undermine President Clinton….

There is more, and ThinkProgress hits the whole op-ed, but seriously — why is Fred Hiatt writing editorial blather without even reading the reporting done by journalists within the same damn paper in which his bloviating fact free missives appear? Doesn't Hiatt find it the least bit embarrassing that he is contradicted not once, but multiple times, in the same paper on the same day? Hello??!!?? (And, honestly, how many times does this have to happen before someone — anyone — at the WaPo gets embarrassed on behalf of Hiatt and plans a fact intervention? Unless, of course, Donald Graham is doing special requests for the editorial page again.  Not exactly holding my breath on this one…)

Matt Stoller at MyDD, quoting Josh at TPM, has this exactly right:

…what Josh Marshall is saying is largely correct.

Pelosi's trip is an embarrassment for the president because it shows an American actually involving herself in realities on the world stage rather than stuck in denial and fantasy. That may sound a bit starry-eyed. But think about it and I'll think you'll see that that's a lot of what this is about.

Pelosi is acting as a real Secretary of State or President would in foreign affairs. She is negotiating and representing an America that offers itself as a trusted partner for peace and collective security.

Much of what America did in international affairs prior to the Bush Presidency was to act as sort of buoy, or a neutral third party in negotiations, a bulwark that other nations could broadly trust. America didn't always keep its word, and it wasn't always a perfectly done role, but there really was no alternative. And I think what the Iraq war has shown is that the alternative really is total chaos, and that means that America can reclaim a leading role in global affairs if we begin to rebuild our credibility….

That Nancy Pelosi is acting like a grown-up, as opposed to a petulant bully throwing a tantrum because the world isn't living up to his abysmally low standards of unreality?  Apparently, Fred Hiatt's understanding of diplomacy is as in depth as his understanding of recent history and those pesky things we like to call "facts."

Runners-up in the goober department this morning: CNN. Crooks and Liars helps them re-do their headlines for consistency's sake (do click thru, you'll be glad you did).  Because, heaven forbid, that there should be any consistency whatsoever in their treatment of both sides of the political aisle.  And Media Matters does a bit of fact-checking on Suzanne Malveaux, and finds her lacking…substantially.

Honestly, some days…well, you finish the sentence, because I know you are thinking the same damn thing. Sheeeesh.