Reason to Prefer Microbrews, #225

I saw Pete Coors on the Russert show yesterday.

Oy.

I'll give him the benefit of a doubt - he may have been jetlagged. Or perhaps someone drugged him. I don't know.

But someone in the party needs to work Coors. He couldn't give a coherent defense of the Patriot Act, even though Russert asked him three times to name one specific reason to support it.

And then there was this little number:

"I suspect that, given what we know today, there would be a much different outcome than we had a couple of years ago," Coors said.

Despite repeated questions from host Tim Russert, Coors declined to say whether he would vote for a war in Iraq, based on current intelligence. "I don't think it's appropriate today to second-guess what decision would be made today, based on the information we have," he explained.

Proof, I guess, that Democrats have no monopoly on myopia when it comes to the war on terror.

And then this:

"We can say weapons of mass destruction, no weapons of mass destruction," Coors said. "Clearly, we should be more worried today, actually, about Iran and North Dakota than we are -- that is, North Korea -- than we are about Iraq, based on weapons of mass destruction."

Was it a misstatement, substituting "Korea" for "Dakota"? Sure, but the war was never "about" WMD, and Coors is playing into the left's hands with his error.

Note to Hugh Hewitt: Have your people talk with Coors. Slap him around. This election is too important for this kind of fluffage.

Posted by Mitch at October 11, 2004 08:26 AM | TrackBack