STUPID, STUPID MICHELLE MALKIN

Malkin has a post up accusing Harry Reid of being a hypocrate, because, as she puts it:

When President Bush leads the way and refuses to let Europe dawdle with dictators, he's a war-mongering "cowboy" who "swaggers" too much and doesn't do enough to allow our coalition partners to do the heavy lifting.

Now, the same bed-wetting Dem Senator--Harry Reid--who accused Bush of swaggering is swaggering about how the President isn't doing enough to lead the way on Iran...

If you actually read the article, or even the portion she posted, it's pretty obvious that what Reid is saying is that the adminstration is not involved in the diplomatic process at all:

"Our not being involved diplomatically in trying to solve the situation in Iran shows the Bush failure in foreign policy there and elsewhere."

And he said the U.S. has no military option in Iran.

"We don't have the resources to do it" because of the ongoing war in Iraq," he said.

Reid is saying that the U.S. needs to be involved in the diplomatic process, instead of leaving it up to the above mentioned countries. He then rejects the military option. The obvious inference is that Reid is operating under the assumption that the U.S. is not making a good faith effort to find a multi-lateral diplomatic solution to the problem (more likely, a multi-lateral solution period) and is instead determined to go to war, no matter who comes along. Does this sound familiar? Of course it does, because it's exactly what happened with Iraq. But for some reason Malkin thinks there is an inconsistency here. Probably because she's stupid.