I should live so long.

The CJR Campaign Desk's Brian Montopoli lays waste to some of the Republican comments on Nancy Pelosi's indictment of Bush's inexperience and incompetence with the simple application of fact...

Pelosi's statement was incendiary, and it's not surprising that the other side reacted angrily. But neither of these statements seems to directly address what Pelosi said. Schmidt talked about "blame America first," despite the fact that Pelosi did not, by any account, blame America -- first, last, or otherwise. He also said that it was the terrorists responsible for the violence, not the president -- despite Pelosi's not ascribing any responsibility for "the violence."

Reynolds reaches even further, claiming that Pelosi was taunting the troops "by saying they dying needlessly and are risking their lives in a shallow mission." Pelosi wasn't talking about the troops, of course, let alone taunting them -- she was talking about the president. And, as a later version of the story points out, she doesn't live in a "pastel-colored condo" -- though we're not sure how the color of Pelosi's place is relevant to Bush's performance in Iraq.

...and follows it up with an intriguing notion.

So here's an idea: What if Associated Press reporter Jim Abrams followed up these irrelevant quotes by writing, "When asked to directly address Pelosi's charges, he declined to comment." Once they've been stung by a few such printed rebukes, politicians, spokesman, and political operators will think twice before offering up talking points and ad hominem attacks instead of actual responses.

Like I said, intriguing, but you'll get better odds playing the lottery...