I actually think Gore will endorse Hillary. A lot of people are saying Gore hates Hillary and generally the Clintons still. But if Gore's recent success and movement into a whole new field of success is any indication of him finding a new passion in life I see no reason as to why he would hold a grudge against both Clintons.
In addition I don't see this Gore/Obama ideological match thing that people keep promoting when you look back to Gore's campaign and the idea she promoted which were basically a subset of Clinton's ideology. Just because Gore is a rockstar candidate doesn't mean he has the same ideology as the other rockstar candidate Obama.
If anything I think Gore might just support Hillary reflecting some kind of new united democratic front at the same time spoken or unspoken he may have some caveat that his endorsement comes with the hope or desire that Hillary chooses Obama or Edwards (maybe even Richardson) as her running mate to further unify and energize the party with a combination of their most popular and dynamic elements. I think Gore has found his passion for success and he is smart like the Clintons and he himself is looking to build consensus about his ideas so why wouldn't he further that to the Democratic party even if he hasn't talked to Clinton yet. Right now the more the Democrats can surprise us and at the same time be innovative the better the party can be motivated which hopefully leaks into the independents as well giving them more votes and a secure (maybe even potential landslide) chance at winning the white house.

This comment section was the most useless yet.

'Do you also think that perhaps the Admin. has either given up on the Iraq central govt. and is not telling us, or that by not having State veto the Kurd/Hunt deal they are sending one of their typically heavy handed, speak-LOUDLY-and-carry-a-wee-stick messages?'

Mark, I do wonder about that.. don't you? It seems very counterproductive to the centnral gov't.

And I do agree that Obama's tax plan is a much bigger deal than Hillary's health plan... it sounds sensible to me, and achievable.

MikeB and Catherine Zeta-Jones were stranded on a desert island. For two months they worked hard at survival, while waiting for rescue.

Then MikeB said, "Catherine, they're never coming to rescue us. Perhaps we should consider taking our relationship to the next level." Ms. Zeta-Jones agreed.

Two more months passed. MikeB asked the actress what she missed most in her new life, such as it was. She listed her family, friends, and career. She returned the question.

"I miss my best friend, Rufus. You could wear my Infantry shirt and my baseball cap and my sunglasses and pretend to be Rufus, couldn't you?"

Ms. Zeta-Jones thought that was sweet, and donned the gear. "MikeB, what would you say to me if I were Rufus?"

RUFI, YOU WON'T BELIEVE THIS! I've been ____ing Catherine Zeta-Jones for TWO MONTHS!

Zoukie, it's time for your medication. You know that I don't like it when you and rufus throw them away without taking them.

You don't want to make me mad!

Apologies to robin, Obama and edwards who should also be praised thusly:

Before the war:

The Ballad of Brave Sir hillary
Bravely bold Sir hillary rode forth from Arkansas.
sHe was not afraid to die, O brave Sir hillary!
sHe was not at all afraid to be killed in nasty ways,
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir hillary!
sHe was not in the least bit scared to be mashed into a pulp,
Or to have his eyes gouged out, and his elbows broken;
To have his kneecaps split, and his body burned away;
And his limbs all hacked and mangled, brave Sir hillary!

His head smashed in and his heart cut out
And his liver removed and his bowels unplugged
And his nostrils raped and his bottom burned off
And his pen--

But then the polls changed

Brave Sir hillary ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir hillary turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir hillary!

He is packing it in and packing it up
And sneaking away and buggering up
And chickening out and pissing off home,
Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge

same rules for Kerry's event that the Dems use everywhere - PATH to 9/11. rush Limbaugh and the fairness doctrine - Movon and illegal campaign ads, etc....

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann...is entilted to have no audience and lose money. that is how the Libs do business. profit is evil, remember? Ratings are for suckers.

Zouk, it seems that the University of Florida cops thought that they were supposed to use the same rules for Kerry's event that they use for GOP events.

OOOOHOHOOHO. Ok. now it makes sense. HAHAHHAHAH. Fricking republcians. You people would be funny if you wern't detroying the constitution, spying on americans, sending your brothers and sisters to their deaths for profit,rigging elections, shaping the electoral process,and so on and so forth. You people would be funny if not for the hundreds of thousands of deaths on all our hands thank to you people. I would laugh if I wasn't so angry at you people.

"Somerdale, N.J.: Howie,

Perhaps you could clarify something for me. Recently on Glenn Beck's show you said:

KURTZ: I think the argument that I've heard Olbermann make in the past about Fox News -- it's not an argument that I embrace -- is that, because it poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation --and is -- is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it's misinforming our society. But you know what?

----They're entitled to do that.

Did you really mean to say that a NEWS organization is entitled to put out misinformation and misinform our society? What kind of a standard is that? You are a media critic and yet you see no problem with a NEWS organization puting out misinformation and misinforming its viewers. Surely you can't be saying what it appears you are saying.

Say it ain't so!!!

Howard Kurtz: I meant that if a network wants to be a cheerleader for the administration -- and I'm not saying Fox is -- it has that right under the First Amendment. I did not mean to endorse the "misinformation" part, since I spend my career trying to hold news organizations accountable for misinformation. Not the most artfully put thing I've ever said. My larger point was simply that whether you agree with a network or not -- and there are some folks who don't agree with NBC, ABC or CBS -- it has the right to offer its take on the news. And is of course subject to criticism for bias and mistakes.

--M.G.
"

www.mediamatters.org

speaking of that taser, kerry, and skull and bones, What did I tell you people? If only you would listen to somebody other than you facsist avatars. There's no telling what you clones/borg would pick up. Most americans are seeing politics on step 65. The gop media is on step 20. You gop robots are still back at step two. Everybody now knows the game the country know's the score.

No g major grouping of people can possibly be this dumb, can they? Is it possible. They must really be slaves to the past if these people are willing to throw all personal credibility out the window for an external avatar. Why? What is to gain? Unless the gop scared these people to death about taxes and they are still living in the 90's. That's all I can think of. Either the gop are incredibly uncalculatably stupid, or their fascists. Which is it zouk? Are you people morons or traitor saboturs?

now please call me | 04:33 PM . I have to keep moving - the black helicoptors, you know.

"Wash. Post media critic Kurtz said Fox News is "entitled" to be a Bush "cheerleader" and "misinform[] our society"
Summary: On Glenn Beck, Howard Kurtz said that Keith Olbermann has described Fox News as a channel that "poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation [and] is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it is misinforming our society." Kurtz added: "But you know what? They're entitled to do that."
During the September 12 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck, Washington Post media critic and CNN Reliable Sources host Howard Kurtz said that MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has described Fox News as a channel that "poses as a news organization and puts out dangerous misinformation [and] is a cheerleader for the Bush administration, that it is misinforming our society." Kurtz added: "But you know what? They're entitled to do that."
"

Lie for profit. And it's called news. And it saves the gop. WHY

My name is no longer Ignorant coward. I am now to be known as |2:19.

Make sense? It does to me.

You could always taser them rufas if you don't like what they say. no sense engaging them on the issues with your skills and positions.

zouk is a coward and a fascist. All independant thinkers will read this blog and see who the problem is. I post truths. I do this as Rufus or JKrish. I will never stop.

you want me gone? Get zouk out of here. Get fox off the air. i am honorable. i am a former army infantry sodlier 11B. What are you? I represent this country and a large number of americans. Who do you represent and why?

Hypocrites sell-outs fascists traitors. Gop. You have a year and a half. Use that time wisely.

Mark, |2:19 here. I think that Baker's comment was post-invasion in 2003; but there's no way I've been able to confirm it.

As to the |3:52 post (Kerry's heckler), that has all of Zouk's fingerprints on it.

all homosexuality is perverted

not exactly - all but me. I am fascinated with it as you can tell. but I have gotten in trouble before and need to stay closeted for now.

his condemnation of the arrest

A day late. He instructed his goons to do it in the first place, then when it hit the papers, he realized it looked bad.

Still waiting for Hillary to condemn moveon and apoligize for war vote, and explain cattle futures and price pardons for next year and explain where were those files all this time and to get Sandy Burgler to explain what he was hiding about terror legacy other than I tried, I failed and on and on....

Please deliver us some clever repartee I can cut and paste. My mind is incapable of anything original or clever. Kos is used up for today.

We are the ignorant and cowardly of the left as you can certainly tell.

| at 2:19P, thanks for looking. I will accept your recollection. Was this from a post - 2002 interview with Baker?

Do you also think that perhaps the Admin. has either given up on the Iraq central govt. and is not telling us, or that by not having State veto the Kurd/Hunt deal they are sending one of their typically heavy handed, speak-LOUDLY-and-carry-a-wee-stick messages?

DC Austinite - I saw a glimpse of Obama's tax plan and it should be bigger news than HRC's Health Plan. Why? Because a Prez might be able to pass a tax plan with a friendly Congress, but as JB says, there will actually be no health plan while we are fighting military actions overseas, and the health plans are just pie-in-the-sky.

-------------------------------------------
poster at 3:50P. - I take it you disagree with Lindsey Graham's politics but want to bash him because you think he is a homosexual and that all homosexuality is perverted. Are you a left wing Christian ayatollah?

| at 3:52P. - I take it you do not like Kerry because he is a "Lib", and you think his condemnation of the arrest of a heckler he disagreed with proves that he only tolerates those who agree with him. Are you actually the left wing Christian ayatollah from 3:50P.?

You latter two posters continue to confuse and confound me.

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in a Jane's Magazine report that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria. /Snip/the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas and VX gas.

run away, we're Libs. no WMDs, remember?

We are the Cons, we don't bother with ethics or doing what's right. We simply grab all the taxpayer money we can. Of course we never change our minds, because we don't have any. We love endless war and death, because it makes us lots of money.

We like to pretend we are busy by passing laws that give big tax breaks to our rich friends and ourselves. Aren't we a loony bunch? We are the Cons.

We are Wingnuts -- hear us whine.

We are the Libs, we don't bother with ethics or doing what's right. We simply take a poll and do whatever the respondents say. Of course we change our minds a lot. this week we are for the war. Next week we plan on opposing it again, but first we neeed to reword the push poll. We will let you know where we plan on vacationing after the poll results come in.

We like to pretend we are busy by passing laws that do nothing but sound good. Like minimum wage and ethics reform. Aren't we a funny bunch? We are the Libs.

A congressional committee has launched an investigation into the State Department's inspector general, alleging that he blocked fraud investigations, including security lapses at the newly built U.S. embassy in Baghdad.

Also under scrutiny is whether Blackwater USA, the private security firm banned this week from working in Iraq for the alleged killing of eight Iraqi civilians, was "illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq," according to a letter to IG Howard J. Krongard that was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

The investigation involves allegations that "your strong affinity with State Department leadership and your partisan political ties have led you to halt investigations, censor reports, and refuse to cooperate with law enforcement agencies," Krongard was told.

Based on allegations made by a number of current and former senior investigators who worked for Krongard, the letter from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee also questioned whether he adequately investigated illegal labor trafficking allegations involving the Kuwaiti company that was building the Baghdad embassy.

Krongard's office said the inspector general was "on travel" Tuesday and unavailable to comment. A spokesman for the office did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt and 11 other Republican members of Congress have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial of a defense contractor charged with bribing jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The ethics bill passed the Senate 96-2, and the House 411-8. Then it was signed by the president. And yet you blame its content entirely on the "Libs".

And before you posted this long plagiarized whine about the new law, you complained that Congress never passes any laws. Consistency is not your strong suit.

The State Department moved quickly Monday to tamp down anger and possible repercussions after the alleged killing of eight Iraqi civilians in an incident involving a private security firm hired to protect U.S. diplomats in Iraq.

The war is killing McConnell.

Research 2000 for media clients. 9/10-13. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Mitch McConnell is doing as U.S. Senator?

Strong Approve 23
Approve 24

Disapprove 23
Strong DIsapprove 21

Do you approve or disapprove of the way U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has handled legislative issues regarding the post-war occupation of Iraq?

Approve 38
Disapprove 55

All in all, do you think going to war against Iraq was worth it, or not?

Yes 32
No 57

More than half of Kentucky voters disapprove of the way Sen. Mitch McConnell has handled legislative issues regarding the post-war occupation of Iraq, see the war as "not worth" it and are torn over McConnell's overall performance as senator, according to newly released poll figures [...]

The apparent disconnect between voters in his home state and McConnell on the war echoes sentiments expressed in national polls conducted this month by the Associated Press-Ipsos and Gallup, which showed that just over half of the voting public sees the Iraq war as a failure and think the U.S. troop buildup hasn't worked. Earlier this year, a Courier-Journal poll of roughly 800 likely voters found that 52 percent of Kentuckians wanted McConnell to oppose the troop surge, compared with 40 percent who said he should support the surge.

the president signed the "Honest Leadership, Open Government Act of 2007" quietly and without fanfare on Friday.

This bill is tough -- on Senate staff assistants, anyway. By eliminating the $50 threshold on gifts that lobbyists can give to Senate staffers, it upholds the integrity of Congress by depriving these twenty-somethings, many of whom make about $30,000 per year, of free tickets to the cheap seats at Nationals' baseball games. It will bar lobbyists from giving them the free key chains, bottle openers, and those squishy blue balls that have heretofore influenced the votes of many corrupt senators.

Democrats seemed very proud of the bill they crafted to bring congressional corruption to its knees. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) have called it "the toughest ethics and lobbying reform in generations," and claimed that it will "significantly reform the way business gets done in Washington."

That must be news to Reps. Jack Murtha (D., Pa.), Pete Visclosky (D., Ind.), and Jim Moran (D., Va.). These three -- two of whom control a House Appropriations subcommittee -- have passed along $100.5 million in earmarks to clients of the PMA Group, a lobbying firm. According to Roll Call, PMA and its clients, in turn, kicked back $542,350 in campaign contributions to these three lawmakers in just the first six months of the year.

Everyone wins in Washington! (Except the taxpayer.)

Despite promises to make earmarks more transparent, the new law allows the Senate majority leader or the relevant committee chairman to waive disclosure at his discretion. Even worse, as Robert Novak reported on September 9, the new bill actually makes it easier to add to the final version of a spending bill scores or even hundreds of earmarks that were never in the original version. This used to require a two-thirds vote in the Senate -- now it will require just a single three-fifths vote to add scores of new pet projects. As for the House, majority Democrats there passed their own earmark rules early in the year and have since figured out how to circumvent them.

The bill prohibits Senate spouses from lobbying the Senate -- but not the ones who are already established lobbyists. This would have done nothing to avert the absurd spectacle in 2001 of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) pushing a $15 billion airline bailout through Congress, while his established lobbyist wife was representing the airline industry. And really, even if Senate spouses lobby the House instead, can any senator be unaware of which special interests are filling his family's bank account?

The best part of the bill is Section 214, a rare example of humor in legislation. The same Democratic Congress that is trying to dictate where the oil industry invests its profits ("you're not putting enough into alternative energy!") has inserted a non-binding resolution urging that "the lobbying community should develop proposals"...to regulate itself!

It should come as no surprise that the "lobbying lobby" that owns Congress has better lobbyists than do the oil lobby, the auto lobby, the beer lobby, or any of the other industries in the United States that actually produce something beneficial to its citizens. That's how we got our new "ethics" law.

this is the kind of ethics reform the Libs pass.

Brent Wilkes goes subpoena crazy. From the AP:

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt and 11 other Repubican members of Congress have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial of a defense contractor charged with bribing jailed former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham.

The number of foreclosure filings reported in the U.S. last month more than doubled versus August 2006 and jumped 36 percent from July, a trend that signals many homeowners are increasingly unable to make timely payments on their mortgages or sell their homes amid a national housing slump.

Who on earth is this dufus "rufus?" And how does he have so much time to spew such garbage? What an idiot.

WASHINGTON - A bill that would have given District of Columbia residents their first-ever member of Congress died in the Senate on Tuesday, dashing hopes of finally gaining full voting rights after a 206-year wait.

Harry Reid can't pass a single resolution. Dem governance. do nothing. "We like to vote a lot and regulate when possible but mostly just talk and investigate lawfull activities. It makes us feel important to go through the motions." Reid said. "Even though I am the leader and in the majority, it isn't my fault. I tried, but I failed, just like bill Clinton, my hero for failure. We expect to do much of the same for the rest of the term." Reid explained.

Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday comdemned the arrest of a University of Florida student at one of his speeches, saying that he was engaged in a "good healthy discussion" with 21-year-old Andrew Meyer when he was Tasered and taken into custody. "In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way," Kerry said in a statement

We are the Libs, we love free speech as long as you agree with us.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho made a surprise appearance Tuesday the U.S. Capitol, his first since the scandal broke last month over allegations he tried to solicit sex from an undercover police officer in a restroom at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

The Republican senator had a brief exchange with CNN's Ted Barrett at a Capitol entrance:

Barrett: "What brings you back to the Capitol today?"
Craig: "Go to work."
Barrett: "Are you intending to vote today, sir?"
Craig: "That's my plan."
Barrett: "Why decide to come back today?"
Craig: "Because I'm a serving United States Senator from Idaho."

Craig then stepped into the senators' dining room on the first floor of the Capitol. On the way he passed a visibly surprised Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, who gave Craig a big welcome back handshake.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed overhauling the tax code to lower taxes for the poor and middle class, increase them for the rich and make it so most Americans can file their taxes in five minutes.

Sen. Barack Obama delivers his tax overhal plan Tuesday in Washington.

The tax relief plan he envisions for the middle class alone would mean $80 billion or more in tax cuts, he said.

Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is a front-runner for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, said during a speech at the Tax Policy Center that the present tax code reflects the wrong priorities because it rewards wealth instead of work.

"Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we've got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code," he said. "This isn't the invisible hand of the market at work. It's the successful work of special interests."

The result, according to Obama? "Gaps in wealth in this country grow wider, while the costs to working people are greater."

The plan means billions in breaks by: nixing income taxes for the 7 million senior citizens making less than $50,000 a year, establishing a universal credit for the 10 million homeowners who make less than $50,000 annually and do not itemize their deductions, and providing 150 million Americans with tax cuts of up to $1,000.

Please deliver us some clever repartee I can cut and paste. My mind is incapable of anything original or clever. Kos is used up for today.

We are the ignorant and cowardly of the left.

We are wingnuts, we run governments into the ground, we create huge deficits, we rip people off for labor and products, we promise benefits we can't provide, we lose in all ratings - TV, books, news; and we can'understand economics or math.

Democrats Delay War Funding Debate Democrats are not expected to take up President Bush's war spending request until November, giving them time to calculate their next move and see if Republican support for his policies deteriorates

Please deliver us some sort of tragedy so we can get on with our agenda - we are the Libs. We desperately NEED america to lose so we can win.

We are Wingnuts, we don't fight wars--we type, we don't debate before black or hispanic audiences, We call generals liars through our surrogates, we don't sign our names on anonymous blogs. but we are very brave.

We are Wingnuts, we don't read intelligence reports, we don't change failing programs, we don't win congressional elections, we're loser, we ruin economies and we spend more than we have, but we are very very stupid.

We are kingofzouk.

Empty Wards In Baghdad Hospital Signal Hope Doctors at the Baghdad hospital, a barometer of bloodshed in the Iraqi capital, say there has been a sharp fall in victims of violence admitted during a seven-month security campaign

We are Libs, we run businesses into the ground, we charge wrong prices for labor and products, we promise benefits we can't provide, we lose in all ratings - TV, books, News; but we understand economics.

When Gen. David Petraeus was asked last week to explain why his report from Iraq was so much rosier than that of the Government Accountability Office, he said that he had more recent data than the GAO did. Petraeus claimed that the GAO's "data cutoff" came at the end of July while his report to Congress included data running all the way through the end of August.

So how do we explain this? The Pentagon contradicted him, releasing its quarterly report on Iraq Monday, and it paints a significantly gloomier picture than the one Petraeus offered just last week, particularly with respect to the security situation in southern Iraq, where the Pentagon says "the security environment" took "a notable turn for the worse in August."

Among the contradictions:

Petraeus on Basra: Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "the level of violence" in Basra "has come down fairly significantly." He told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that it has "just flat plummeted."

The Pentagon on Basra: "With the expected continued reduction of British forces, insurgent groups are increasingly focusing on Basra and are posturing themselves to control the city, where violence has increased due to the presence of multiple Shi'a militias -- most notably JAM and its splinter groups, the Badr Organization and the Fadilah Organization -- and criminal groups."

Petraeus on Muthanna and Dhi Qar: "Muthanna province, even though the governor was assassinated, we're pretty certain by militia extremists, continues to stay fine. They will have a new governor. They'll work out OK ... In Dhi Qar province, the capital of Nasiriyah, we have a single U.S. special forces team, there's an Australian battalion focused primarily on civil military operations. And, again, that province [is] doing really quite well."

The Pentagon on Muthanna and Dhi Qar: "There may be retaliation [for the assassination of the governors of Qadisiyah and Muthanna] and an increase in intra-Shi'a violence throughout the south, whereas before, this violence was mostly limited to Basra. Violence in Qadisiyah, Dhi Qar and Muthanna in recent months has highlighted JAM's ability to attack Iraqi forces and cause instability in the south."

We are Libs, we don't fight wars, we don't debate on fox, we don't go on the view, We call generals liars through our surrogates, we don't sign our names on anonymous blogs. but we are very brave.

We are Libs, we don't read intelligence reports, we don't change failing programs, we don't win presidential elections, we lose to that dummy bush, we ruin economies and we spend more than we have, but we are very smart.

Who is creepier, honestly, George Soros or Richard Mellon Scaife? Be honest.

Let's see if the right maintains its reverence for the every utterance of Iraq war commanders when they get a load of this:

"Every effort, short of military, should be made to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but failing that, the world could live with a nuclear-armed regime in Tehran, a recently retired commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Monday.

John Abizaid, the retired Army general who headed Central Command for nearly four years, said he was confident that if Iran gained nuclear arms, the United States could deter it from using them.

"Iran is not a suicide nation," he said. "I mean, they may have some people in charge that don't appear to be rational, but I seriously doubt that the Iranians intend to attack us with a nuclear weapon."

The Iranians are aware, he said, that the United States has a far superior military capability.

"I believe that we have the power to deter Iran, should it become nuclear," he said, referring to the theory that Iran would not risk a catastrophic retaliatory strike by using a nuclear weapon against the United States.

"There are ways to live with a nuclear Iran," Abizaid said in remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank. "Let's face it, we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we've lived with a nuclear China, and we're living with (other) nuclear powers as well."

'it showed that the Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the George Soros empire.'

zouk is a parrot for every radical rightwing talking point that was ever uttered on fox or limbaugh.

The actual quote is: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for SECURITY deserve neither," because that makes sense. Those who sacrifice liberty for freedom are probably too busy drooling on cardboard to have much of an opinion about the war.

a photo of ignorant coward AND

Why, yes -- everytime I walk two miles in the sun I carry a life-sized stuffed collie. Why do you ask?"

rufas of course.

Good find Proud. I know drindl is there somewhere too.

'Of course if our mission in Iraq were wrong or foolish or impossible, we would be right to abandon it. '

well zouk, since 'our mission ' whatever it is this week -- is both wrong AND foolish, we are right to abandon it. As soon as possible.

Not to be outdone, Sen. Hillary Clinton's accusations defined Gen. Petraeus as nothing but a prevaricator. When questioning him on September 11, she lectured that, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief." The phrase "suspension of disbelief" is a literary term of art referring to one of Aristotle's principles of theater in which the audience accepts fiction as reality so as to experience a catharsis, or a releasing of tensions to purify the soul. The general's testimony, however, was more in keeping with Bertolt Brecht's philosophy of verfremdungseffect, or distancing from that suspended disbelief, in order to maintain a clearheaded appreciation of the drama in focus. Perhaps another viewing of Brecht's "Threepenny Opera' might prove more edifying for her.

If that doesn't work, there's always the more sobering script furnished by the general himself. He testified that since December, ethnocentric deaths have dropped by 80 percent in Baghdad and 55 percent nationwide.

In Anbar Province (one-third of Iraq formerly responsible for over 50 percent of American fatalities), attacks have plummeted from 1,000 in October 2006 to 200 in August, and it is now controlled by the United States and its recently acquired Sunni allies.

But war opponents prefer to remind everyone that the Government Accountability Office Report on Iraq was far less flattering. It doesn't faze them that said findings were based on data ending five weeks before the general's own tracking and that his data was viewed by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency as the superior gauge.

Hurry back, general. You're already missed.

Most Democratic leaders refused to condemn the ad. Some, like Hillary Clinton, independently echoed its sentiment. Clinton unmistakably called Petraeus a liar when she told him, "I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."

Gone for now are the "Sister Souljah moments," where Democratic presidential candidates dress down the far left to appear more centrist to a credulous general electorate. If this ad proved nothing else, it showed that the Democratic Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the George Soros empire.

With today's Democratic Party, we are witnessing the full-blown resurrection of the far antiwar left of 1972, but with a sinister twist. This institution is more than the political vehicle for the antiwar movement and other leftist causes. It has become a highly refined and lavishly funded character assassination machine that relies more on ad hominem attacks than debating the merits of issues to win elections and advance its policy agenda.

Posted by: | September 18, 2007 02:48 PM - Interesting that the representative of politics as usual, corporate interests, greed, and nonsense, would condemn the rufus and I, the only genuinely liberal people represented here. And, might I add, based on our comments and rsearch, the most intelligent and articulate.

Among the Antiwarriors

Just another D.C. weekend.

These are photos from an antiwar rally in Washington, D.C., on Saturday, September 15, 2007.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjVlZjZhMjc2M2YyM2RjY2QzZmFmZDUwYmYxM2U1NTg=

Now proced to bash web, a veteran and former secretary of the navy, as anti-american and a lair. That's how hypocricy works, right gop. Attack murtha and web but not a loyal bushy. I'm wading through the gop hypocricy as a post this

"Sen. Jim Webb fields a question from Richmond Times-Dispatch's Peter Hardin on his son, recently returned from Iraq, and uses it to dispute Petraeus's claims last week on the success of the "Surge" in Anbar province.

Download (115) | Play (137) Download (54) | Play (51)

Gen. Petraeus was advancing the success in Anbar Province as evidence that the surge is working and I thought it was very important in terms of the facts of the matter to point out that the successes in Anbar are...began well before the surge and my son's battalion the first 6th Marines basically took Ramadi back block by block and street by street September October November December of last year and not to in any way diminish the command perspective of Gen. Petraeus but it's wrong to say that was due to the surge.
"

www.crooksandliars.com

Iraq has made everything fresh and new for the Democratic leadership. If it can paint Iraq as another Vietnam and relive its great triumphs of the 1970s, the damage done to the American psyche might be permanent. Americans might stop believing in liberty, equality, and democracy for all mankind and retreat to the revised European version: liberty, equality, and democracy (of a sort)--for us. Instead of believing Lincoln's words--"with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in"--Americans might become self-satisfied and complacent pseudo-Europeans. Hollow men. Without Americanism, America joins the European robot republics that have no spiritual life and don't even miss it.

But it's also possible that the Democratic leadership's wish for American defeat in Iraq will make it clear to this nation (to conservatives and liberals) that today's Democratic party is no longer a responsible party of government--at least at the national level where America's security, vision, and honor are at stake.

why aren't you putting your lives where your mouths are?

Do the rest of the world a favor.

zouk is a coward and a fascist. Why are you true beleivers putting your lives where your mouths are?

"More revealingly still, only a small minority of Americans -- the depressingly familiar Bush dead-enders -- actually believe Gen. Petraeus' claims that "the surge has made things in Iraq better." A substantial majority of Americans disbelieves the assertions of The General Who Must Not be Challenged:

The poll also found that despite optimistic assessments of the U.S. troop surge by Mr. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Americans are unconvinced that the surge is working.

Only about one in three (31 percent) said the surge has made things in Iraq better, while more than half (51 percent) say it's had no impact. Eleven percent [11 percent] say it's made things worse.
"

This is why they called petreus a lair and a betrayer. If I call the sky blue and the gop cleary syas it's red, you gop'ers would go to your death beds seeing red skies HAHAHAHAHA

To leading Democrats such as Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, Al Gore and John Edwards, America would be better off if she lost. And this has been true from the start.

To rephrase the question: Why did Harry Reid announce months ago that the war was lost when it wasn't, and everyone knew it wasn't? The wish is father to the deed. He was envisioning the world of his dreams.

The Democrats' embrace of defeat is inspired by no base desire to see Americans killed or American resources wasted. But let's be honest about it, and invite the Democrats to be honest too.

Appeasement, pacifism, globalism: Those are the Big Three principles of the Democratic left. Each one has been defended by serious people; all are philosophically plausible, or at least arguable. But they are unpopular (especially the first two) with the U.S. public, and so the Democrats rarely make their views plain. We must infer their ideas from their (usually) guarded public statements.

Globalism and Euro-envy are explicit, sometimes, in Democratic pronouncements--about the sanctity of the United Nations, the importance of global conferences and "multilateralism" (except in cases like North Korea, where the president already is moving multilaterally), the superiority of the Canadian or German health care system, and so forth. The Democrats are not unpatriotic, but their patriotism is directed at a large abstract entity called The International Community or even (aping Bronze Age paganism) the Earth, not at
America. Benjamin Disraeli anticipated this worldview long ago when he called Liberals the "Philosophical" and Conservatives the "National" party. Liberals are loyal to philosophical abstractions--and seek harmony with the French and Germans. Conservatives are loyal to their own nation, and seek harmony with its Founders and heroes and guiding principles.

The Democrats don't conceal their globalist ideas, but their appeasement and pacifism are positions they can only hint at.

So Democratic senator Dick Durbin had the effrontery to plead with the nation to pray for our Iraq wounded and please not to forget them--as if Republicans need Dick Durbin to remind them to honor our troops. When Democrats dwell on alleged analogies between Iraq and Vietnam, the message is clear. "Bring our troops home," says Harry Reid, and adds the incantation "responsibly"--which magically protects him from all charges of irresponsibility. ("Abolish the Constitution and sink the Navy--responsibly!") When MoveOn held a candlelight vigil over the summer to support Senate Democrats, the symbolism was plain. We light candles to remember the dead.

But if we only remember the dead and not the cause for which they died, we dishonor and make nonsense of the noblest of all sacrifices. And we mock a president who asked that "from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain." That is the issue when Americans die in combat. Do we finish the mission and invest their deaths with meaning? Or do we shrug them off, inscribe their names on some sepulchral black wall in a ditch, and walk away?

Of course if our mission in Iraq were wrong or foolish or impossible, we would be right to abandon it. But recall that Americans have fought and died in Iraq to destroy a tyranny that was underwriting terrorism, threatening the peace of its region and the world--and torturing its own people to death. Americans died to put Iraq in the hands of a government that would terrorize neither its own people nor any other nor the world at large. Their mission was noble and right

PoliticalBuzz exclusive Mike Huckabee interview. Good stuff...
http://political-buzz.com

Sorry for the plug.

amsterdam/switz

Hypocrite gop. Cry and whine about free speech while silecning others.I used to think it wasn't your fault. I just thought you were old outdated and didn't know you were getting lied to for the profit of gop'ers. That excuse no longer flies. Your willful ignorance is now a choice.

You are responsible for who WE elect. If you people choose gop fascism you deserve what you get. I know I'll be living in amsterdamswitz/sweden/denmark if that happens. I still have hope we are not a facist nation. Time will tell. The ignoramous's on this site show all independant thinkers what the gop is really about. You think you can make th rules but you don't have to follow. Tha tis the defination of a hypocrite. that is the defenition of a liar. That is why the gop is about to be thrown out of politics for a generation.

"Limitless wrongness
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

Here is a review of what we learned last week from the right-wing noise machine and their enabling media puppets: Americans trust Gen. Petraeus and do not want his credibility questioned. The week was a big win for President Bush and his Iraq policy. The MoveOn newspaper ad, like 9/11, was Going to Change Everything -- it was a devastating event for Democrats, a transformative moment that would embolden Republicans and revitalize support for the war.

A new CBS poll, comparing the views of Americans Before Petraues (B.P.) and After Petraeus (A.P.), demonstrates that all of that was completely wrong:

Most Americans continue to want troops to start coming home from Iraq, and most say the plan President Bush announced last week for troop reductions doesn't go far enough, according to a CBS News poll released Monday. . . .

Sixty-eight percent of Americans say that U.S. troop levels in Iraq should either be reduced or that all troops should be removed - similar numbers to those before Mr. Bush's speech.

In fact, it is even worse than that, since the percentage of Americans who believe we should either maintain or increase our current troops levels in Iraq was higher B.P. (30%) than it is A.P. (27%). Conversely, the percentage of Americans who want a troop reduction or complete withdrawal increased after the Petraeus Week (from 65% to 68%).

More revealingly still, only a small minority of Americans -- the depressingly familiar Bush dead-enders -- actually believe Gen. Petraeus' claims that "the surge has made things in Iraq better." A substantial majority of Americans disbelieves the assertions of The General Who Must Not be Challenged:

The poll also found that despite optimistic assessments of the U.S. troop surge by Mr. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Americans are unconvinced that the surge is working.

Only about one in three (31 percent) said the surge has made things in Iraq better, while more than half (51 percent) say it's had no impact. Eleven percent [11 percent] say it's made things worse.

Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity and much of the chattering class insisted all week that it was "despicable" for Senators such as Hillary Clinton to suggest that The General's claims of Progress were not believable. Yet most Americans are similarly "despicable," as they appear to share that sentiment. A despicable 62% do not believe Gen. Petraeus' sunny claims about Progress.

In military dictatorships, War Generals have the right to demand that their claims about war be blindly accepted and believed, and that is the unquestioning mentality which Rudy Giuliani embraces and believes we should accord Gen. Petraeus (even in the face of a long history of highly dubious and inaccurate claims about the war) -- "Hillary Clinton has no right to be attacking the integrity of an American general who has put his life at risk for this country," Giuliani decreed. But most Americans, rather obviously, subject the claims of our military leaders to skepticism and scrutiny -- the only rational course of action after being told for four straight years that the most disastrous war in American history was going swimmingly.

Finally, there is this:

Overall, Americans remain pessimistic about the war. Just 34 percent think things are going well for the U.S. in Iraq, while 63 percent say things are going badly - about the same as before the president's speech.

More than half of Americans (55 percent) believe that success in Iraq is unlikely, and nearly two-thirds (65 percent) think Mr. Bush's assessments of the situation there are too rosy.

Put another way, the reality is exactly the opposite of what most of the American media spent all week claiming. They premised everything they said on their groundless assumption that "Americans would trust what Gen. Petraeus says," even though polls uniformly showed that Americans expected exaggerated optimism from Petraeus. As always, they just ignored that reality and supplanted it with their own fringe perspective, in which highly revered Beltway figures are entitled to blind faith.

As but one highly illustrative example, let us revel in the Triumph of Petraeus from the Chris Matthews Show last Wednesday night:

JERRY DELLA FEMINA, ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE: Well, they're doing a good job of it this week. Let me tell you, they couldn't find anyone better than Petraeus. I mean, you just can't beat a man in full uniform speaking to -- well, I'll give you Ollie North facing the Congress. You know, you stand up there, and he's wearing a uniform. And boy, you can't take a guy in uniform versus six overweight senators. . . .

I think the biggest mistake that was made was the anti -- the "Petraeus Betray us" that ran just before that. I mean, what a setup that was. Snow could get up and say, Gee, this is a hero. How could we treat this man this way?

So if I was -- you know, if this was a dirty tricks game, someone would say, Let's put an ad in making fun of this war hero, and then let's knock him down and show -- so it was a terrible mistake...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DELLA FEMINA: ... and it really set the week off on the wrong note for people who were against the surge. . . .

[DANA] MILBANK [THE WASHINGTON POST]: Bush had a terrible August down on the ranch and then has explosive Septembers. And I think he's won this battle already.

MATTHEWS: How so?

MILBANK: Petraeus --it's no accident he had a Latin name. It looked like he was the Roman general returning to the republic in his gold and purple toga, and they were celebrating him and slaying white bulls. They could not get enough of this man. And anybody's who's even critical of the war wouldn't dare criticize...

MATTHEWS: Right.

MILBANK: ... except in the most polite way, General Petraeus because then you appear to be criticizing the troops. I think it's game, set and match here.

Most of the media still believes -- based in part on how they have been trained and in part on their hopes -- that the Bush movement, any day now, will re-discover its glory and magic and get the country back on its side with regard to the war. It took them a long time to accept the reality that the country had abandoned the Leader and the War, and ever since then, they have continuously been predicting a reversal.

Their Dean, David Broder, in the wake of a standard Bush Press Conference on Iraq last February, infamously declared, in his column entitled "Bush Regains his Footing," that "President Bush is poised for a political comeback" and that "Bush now shows signs of renewed energy and is regaining the initiative on several fronts."

Most absurdly of all, Dean Broder -- just weeks after the President announced he would escalate the war in Iraq despite overwhelming public opposition -- wrote in the same column: "With the public eager for some bipartisan progress on all these fronts, Bush is signaling that he, at least, is ready to try." The press corps has the Dean they deserve. The reason they are endlessly wrong is because their whole narrative is an insular Beltway narrative that could not have anything less to do with the country as a whole.

In their world, the Republicans are always ascendent, Bush is always the Strong Leader, Democrats are always the sorry losers captive to their destructive Leftist extremists, and Americans are aching to support the War. They have been predicting endlessly that, any day now, all of this will be true again.

They actually thought that a newspaper ad was going to transform deeply entrenched views about the Republicans and the War because their friends Ed Gillispie and Tony Snow and Sean Hannity told them it would. The Rise of Petraeus the Good and the unmasking of the Evil MoveOn Left was going to change everything, back to its rightful place. It changed nothing, including the media itself, which will seize on some other event a few weeks from now to declare yet again the latest surging comeback for the President, the war and the right-wing faction which has followed him.

UPDATE: Right-wing cliches masquerading as sophisticated political insight -- the hallmark of our media elite:

Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, The Washington Post (h/t Atrios): "MoveOn.org provided Republicans a life raft when it ran a full-page newspaper advertisement Monday taunting Petraeus as 'General Betray Us.'"

Time's Joe Klein (h/t emaydon): "It seems clear the President has won this round. An optimistic general will trump a skeptical politician anytime."

Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard: "For Democrats, Petraeus Week was a wrenching ordeal. . . . The New York Times ad by MoveOn.org trashing Petraeus as a liar backfired badly. . . . The prospect of a return engagement by Petraeus can only fill Democrats with a feeling of dread."

Mitch McConnell: "I assure you, we're going to continue to press Democrats both collectively and individually to denounce this ad. I think this organization is ruining the reputation of the Democratic Party."

Time's Joe Klein: "I remain convinced that the MoveOn 'Betrayus' ad was not only deeply stupid and an unconscionable slur against an honorable man, but also potentially very damaging to Democratic candidates running across the country."

Fox News favorite Susan Estrich: "The Democrats, especially the Democrats running for president, have a problem, and his name is Petraeus."

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle: "I think this is a pretty politically tone-deaf ad . . . . When U.S. military commanders are the only people a majority of Americans trust to end the war -- as this new NYT/CBS poll makes clear -- attacking America's most prominent military commander doesn't seem like a very smart move. . . ."

"Joe Klein makes the essential point about Bush and Petraeus in a much more cogent fashion . . . . Maybe the next time Bush sends Petraeus to the Hill, Democrats--to say nothing of MoveOn--will take a different approach to dealing with him."

UPDATE II: By way of comparison to the media establishment's immediately solidified (and completely wrong) conventional wisdom, this is what Markos Moulitsas said when asked by Chris Matthews about the MoveOn ad during Petraeus Week:

MATTHEWS: Let me go to Markos Moulitsas.

Sir, what did you make of the testimony today and the ad that ran in "The Times" this morning by your colleague here, Mr. Pariser?

MARKOS MOULITSAS, DAILY KOS: Well, to me, you know, way out in California, it's -- it's almost amusing to see how, in Washington, D.C., everyone is all up in arms over an ad.

You know, we are in the middle of this bloody war, almost 4,000 dead, half-a-trillion dollars spent. And people are going to talk about how inappropriate an ad is? I think it's patently ridiculous.

And most people outside of the sort of beltway environment really don't care about an ad. They want to see our men and women coming home safe and sound to their families.

That is all just so transparently true, and yet our Beltway commentators are incapable of realizing it. Instead, the same revered pundits who cheered on Bush's war in the first place are still babbling about this petty sideshow more than a week later. They haven't been this in awe of anyone as they are of Gen. Petraeus since Oliver North proudly justified his lawbreaking, nor as outraged as they are over the MoveOn ad since Bill Clinton had oral sex.

If only they had managed to muster even a small fraction of the outrage and offense over the war itself, or the radicalism and lawlessness of this administration. But that would have proven how Unserious they are. It is much more rewarding to show that they are the Serious, Responsible establishment members who lavish the General with the honor and reverence he deserves while scorning the insufficiently respectful leftist radicals.

UPDATE III: Thank you to Greg VA in comments for noting the most amazing media pronouncement of all -- this one from David Broder in his Washington Post chat from last Friday: "I think the MoveOn ad on Gen. Petraeus was disgraceful, and it probably did serious damage to the effort to shorten the Iraq war."

Just look at the two Broder claims cited in this post -- his announcement in February that Bush was making a comeback because of how bipartisan he was being, and his argument last week that MoveOn's ad would be so significant that, by itself, "it probably did serious damage to the effort to shorten the Iraq war." Now compare actual polling data with Broder's claims.

It would be hard to be more wrong about such basic political matters even if one's goal were to achieve maximum wrongness, yet this is the person held in the highest esteem by our press corps, and they reserve special reverence when they talk about how in touch he is with the American Heartland Voter. That all just speaks for itself -- so, so loudly.

-- Glenn Greenwald
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/18/wrongness/

fREE SPEECH? oNLY IF YOU ARE GOP. tHE REST OF US HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE FOR SPEAKING TRUTH.

you gop'er don't have to worry about that do you. Instead, lie spin and discredit. Be a slave to a party OVER country. That is the GOP way. Patriots take their lumps for their country they love. What have you sell-out republcians sacraficed in the last 15 years? Nothing. No tonly that you people are profitting off the decline of this nation. Patriots are willing to die for this great nation. gop?

Mark in Austin,
yes, yes, things are looking grim in Longhorn land. I thought we'd turned a page with TCU. Guess not.

rufas, MikeB and Ignorant coward. I see all thinking people have been run off again by the stooge brigade.

AndyR - Dude, you really took one for the team today! thanks :)

rufus - I thought it was you who got tasered yesterday after asking Kerry about impeaching President Bush and whether he and Bush were both members of Skull and Bones at Yale. Sorry that your plea "Don't tase me, bro!" fell on deaf ears.

Kerry's an Obama-Gore man, you know.

The MoveOn.org ad was the moment for Clinton to rise above hackdom. It was a moment for her to insist that the business of politics, not to mention governing, is made even uglier and more difficult when people who merely differ with one another resort to insult. It was a moment for her to say that an Army general, under orders and attempting to fulfill a mission, should not be so casually trashed -- especially since she herself has been on the other side of the Iraq War issue and said things she must now regret. And it was a moment for her to trot out her favorite phrase and use it, not in her own defense for once, but in defense of someone else. That moment is gone now -- maybe because for Hillary Clinton it never arrived in the first place.

Apu! Tell us, are you one of the tens of thousands of Indian "guest workers" Hillary and Bill brought here that takes engineering and software jobs from American workers?

Mr. B, is there any other vitriol we can help you with today?

lylepink was in last night and said to say, "Hi !" to you.

Thank you and come again!

Mark, unfortunately I saw it as it was broadcast. Never thought to note the date and time. I've never seen Baker quoted on anything remotely like it again.

I always suspected that he was quickly asked to stay away from any more quotes like that.

Can't find it by googling either. Sorry.

Very disappointing. But expected. He has a hstroy with the clintons. I was hoping he was with the program. Now I know he is not with us but with the sell-out moderates. Though I still hold out hope that they will eventually turn on the gop that has gutted the military and put us in a police state. Eventually they will have to turn on them, won't they. How long will the moderates keep their heads in the sand mike? How long can they?

What's up mikeb. I feel you. Hillary is gop. What did youthink about the clark announcement? Very dissappointing. I stopped his newsletter as soon as I got his email on who he was supporting. i hope most others did too. Send a message, you know.

DCAustinite, we sure sucked wind against UCF. The Sooners are going to kill us, I fear. K-St. may beat us. We should be able to slide by Rice...

|, from last night, you quoted Baker, and I have searched for that quote. I found one from Gulf War I about "jobs", but not the one you heard. Got a citation?

I'd like to think that Gore has the self respect, ethics, and intellectual honesty that he will endorse either Edwards or Obama. He wont touch Hillary with a flaming ten foot pole. She is one of the dirtiest, most self serving rats we have ever witnessed. Anyone, and I mean anyone, endorsing her immediately becomes the ENEMY of liberals, KOS types, and Democrats representing or speaking out for workers. They essentially end their politcial careers.

since this blog is being wasted today. I will step in.

"Tuesday September 18, 2007 07:13 EST
Limitless wrongness
(updated below - Update II - Update III)

Here is a review of what we learned last week from the right-wing noise machine and their enabling media puppets: Americans trust Gen. Petraeus and do not want his credibility questioned. The week was a big win for President Bush and his Iraq policy. The MoveOn newspaper ad, like 9/11, was Going to Change Everything -- it was a devastating event for Democrats, a transformative moment that would embolden Republicans and revitalize support for the war.

A new CBS poll, comparing the views of Americans Before Petraues (B.P.) and After Petraeus (A.P.), demonstrates that all of that was completely wrong:

Most Americans continue to want troops to start coming home from Iraq, and most say the plan President Bush announced last week for troop reductions doesn't go far enough, according to a CBS News poll released Monday. . . .

Sixty-eight percent of Americans say that U.S. troop levels in Iraq should either be reduced or that all troops should be removed - similar numbers to those before Mr. Bush's speech.

In fact, it is even worse than that, since the percentage of Americans who believe we should either maintain or increase our current troops levels in Iraq was higher B.P. (30%) than it is A.P. (27%). Conversely, the percentage of Americans who want a troop reduction or complete withdrawal increased after the Petraeus Week (from 65% to 68%).

More revealingly still, only a small minority of Americans -- the depressingly familiar Bush dead-enders -- actually believe Gen. Petraeus' claims that "the surge has made things in Iraq better." A substantial majority of Americans disbelieves the assertions of The General Who Must Not be Challenged:

The poll also found that despite optimistic assessments of the U.S. troop surge by Mr. Bush and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Americans are unconvinced that the surge is working.

Only about one in three (31 percent) said the surge has made things in Iraq better, while more than half (51 percent) say it's had no impact. Eleven percent [11 percent] say it's made things worse.

Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity and much of the chattering class insisted all week that it was "despicable" for Senators such as Hillary Clinton to suggest that The General's claims of Progress were not believable. Yet most Americans are similarly "despicable," as they appear to share that sentiment. A despicable 62% do not believe Gen. Petraeus' sunny claims about Progress.

In military dictatorships, War Generals have the right to demand that their claims about war be blindly accepted and believed, and that is the unquestioning mentality which Rudy Giuliani embraces and believes we should accord Gen. Petraeus (even in the face of a long history of highly dubious and inaccurate claims about the war) -- "Hillary Clinton has no right to be attacking the integrity of an American general who has put his life at risk for this country," Giuliani decreed. But most Americans, rather obviously, subject the claims of our military leaders to skepticism and scrutiny -- the only rational course of action after being told for four straight years that the most disastrous war in American history was going swimmingly.

Finally, there is this:

Overall, Americans remain pessimistic about the war. Just 34 percent think things are going well for the U.S. in Iraq, while 63 percent say things are going badly - about the same as before the president's speech.

More than half of Americans (55 percent) believe that success in Iraq is unlikely, and nearly two-thirds (65 percent) think Mr. Bush's assessments of the situation there are too rosy.

Put another way, the reality is exactly the opposite of what most of the American media spent all week claiming. They premised everything they said on their groundless assumption that "Americans would trust what Gen. Petraeus says," even though polls uniformly showed that Americans expected exaggerated optimism from Petraeus. As always, they just ignored that reality and supplanted it with their own fringe perspective, in which highly revered Beltway figures are entitled to blind faith.

As but one highly illustrative example, let us revel in the Triumph of Petraeus from the Chris Matthews Show last Wednesday night:

JERRY DELLA FEMINA, ADVERTISING EXECUTIVE: Well, they're doing a good job of it this week. Let me tell you, they couldn't find anyone better than Petraeus. I mean, you just can't beat a man in full uniform speaking to -- well, I'll give you Ollie North facing the Congress. You know, you stand up there, and he's wearing a uniform. And boy, you can't take a guy in uniform versus six overweight senators. . . .

I think the biggest mistake that was made was the anti -- the "Petraeus Betray us" that ran just before that. I mean, what a setup that was. Snow could get up and say, Gee, this is a hero. How could we treat this man this way?

So if I was -- you know, if this was a dirty tricks game, someone would say, Let's put an ad in making fun of this war hero, and then let's knock him down and show -- so it was a terrible mistake...

MATTHEWS: Yes.

DELLA FEMINA: ... and it really set the week off on the wrong note for people who were against the surge. . . .

[DANA] MILBANK [THE WASHINGTON POST]: Bush had a terrible August down on the ranch and then has explosive Septembers. And I think he's won this battle already.

MATTHEWS: How so?

MILBANK: Petraeus --it's no accident he had a Latin name. It looked like he was the Roman general returning to the republic in his gold and purple toga, and they were celebrating him and slaying white bulls. They could not get enough of this man. And anybody's who's even critical of the war wouldn't dare criticize...

MATTHEWS: Right.

MILBANK: ... except in the most polite way, General Petraeus because then you appear to be criticizing the troops. I think it's game, set and match here.

Most of the media still believes -- based in part on how they have been trained and in part on their hopes -- that the Bush movement, any day now, will re-discover its glory and magic and get the country back on its side with regard to the war. It took them a long time to accept the reality that the country had abandoned the Leader and the War, and ever since then, they have continuously been predicting a reversal.

Their Dean, David Broder, in the wake of a standard Bush Press Conference on Iraq last February, infamously declared, in his column entitled "Bush Regains his Footing," that "President Bush is poised for a political comeback" and that "Bush now shows signs of renewed energy and is regaining the initiative on several fronts."

Most absurdly of all, Dean Broder -- just weeks after the President announced he would escalate the war in Iraq despite overwhelming public opposition -- wrote in the same column: "With the public eager for some bipartisan progress on all these fronts, Bush is signaling that he, at least, is ready to try." The press corps has the Dean they deserve. The reason they are endlessly wrong is because their whole narrative is an insular Beltway narrative that could not have anything less to do with the country as a whole.

In their world, the Republicans are always ascendent, Bush is always the Strong Leader, Democrats are always the sorry losers captive to their destructive Leftist extremists, and Americans are aching to support the War. They have been predicting endlessly that, any day now, all of this will be true again.

They actually thought that a newspaper ad was going to transform deeply entrenched views about the Republicans and the War because their friends Ed Gillispie and Tony Snow and Sean Hannity told them it would. The Rise of Petraeus the Good and the unmasking of the Evil MoveOn Left was going to change everything, back to its rightful place. It changed nothing, including the media itself, which will seize on some other event a few weeks from now to declare yet again the latest surging comeback for the President, the war and the right-wing faction which has followed him.

UPDATE: Right-wing cliches masquerading as sophisticated political insight -- the hallmark of our media elite:

Jonathan Weisman and Shailagh Murray, The Washington Post (h/t Atrios): "MoveOn.org provided Republicans a life raft when it ran a full-page newspaper advertisement Monday taunting Petraeus as 'General Betray Us.'"

Time's Joe Klein (h/t emaydon): "It seems clear the President has won this round. An optimistic general will trump a skeptical politician anytime."

Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard: "For Democrats, Petraeus Week was a wrenching ordeal. . . . The New York Times ad by MoveOn.org trashing Petraeus as a liar backfired badly. . . . The prospect of a return engagement by Petraeus can only fill Democrats with a feeling of dread."

Mitch McConnell: "I assure you, we're going to continue to press Democrats both collectively and individually to denounce this ad. I think this organization is ruining the reputation of the Democratic Party."

Time's Joe Klein: "I remain convinced that the MoveOn 'Betrayus' ad was not only deeply stupid and an unconscionable slur against an honorable man, but also potentially very damaging to Democratic candidates running across the country."

Fox News favorite Susan Estrich: "The Democrats, especially the Democrats running for president, have a problem, and his name is Petraeus."

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle: "I think this is a pretty politically tone-deaf ad . . . . When U.S. military commanders are the only people a majority of Americans trust to end the war -- as this new NYT/CBS poll makes clear -- attacking America's most prominent military commander doesn't seem like a very smart move. . . ."

"Joe Klein makes the essential point about Bush and Petraeus in a much more cogent fashion . . . . Maybe the next time Bush sends Petraeus to the Hill, Democrats--to say nothing of MoveOn--will take a different approach to dealing with him."

UPDATE II: By way of comparison to the media establishment's immediately solidified (and completely wrong) conventional wisdom, this is what Markos Moulitsas said when asked by Chris Matthews about the MoveOn ad during Petraeus Week:

MATTHEWS: Let me go to Markos Moulitsas.

Sir, what did you make of the testimony today and the ad that ran in "The Times" this morning by your colleague here, Mr. Pariser?

MARKOS MOULITSAS, DAILY KOS: Well, to me, you know, way out in California, it's -- it's almost amusing to see how, in Washington, D.C., everyone is all up in arms over an ad.

You know, we are in the middle of this bloody war, almost 4,000 dead, half-a-trillion dollars spent. And people are going to talk about how inappropriate an ad is? I think it's patently ridiculous.

And most people outside of the sort of beltway environment really don't care about an ad. They want to see our men and women coming home safe and sound to their families.

That is all just so transparently true, and yet our Beltway commentators are incapable of realizing it. Instead, the same revered pundits who cheered on Bush's war in the first place are still babbling about this petty sideshow more than a week later. They haven't been this in awe of anyone as they are of Gen. Petraeus since Oliver North proudly justified his lawbreaking, nor as outraged as they are over the MoveOn ad since Bill Clinton had oral sex.

If only they had managed to muster even a small fraction of the outrage and offense over the war itself, or the radicalism and lawlessness of this administration. But that would have proven how Unserious they are. It is much more rewarding to show that they are the Serious, Responsible establishment members who lavish the General with the honor and reverence he deserves while scorning the insufficiently respectful leftist radicals.

UPDATE III: Thank you to Greg VA in comments for noting the most amazing media pronouncement of all -- this one from David Broder in his Washington Post chat from last Friday: "I think the MoveOn ad on Gen. Petraeus was disgraceful, and it probably did serious damage to the effort to shorten the Iraq war."

Just look at the two Broder claims cited in this post -- his announcement in February that Bush was making a comeback because of how bipartisan he was being, and his argument last week that MoveOn's ad would be so significant that, by itself, "it probably did serious damage to the effort to shorten the Iraq war." Now compare actual polling data with Broder's claims.

It would be hard to be more wrong about such basic political matters even if one's goal were to achieve maximum wrongness, yet this is the person held in the highest esteem by our press corps, and they reserve special reverence when they talk about how in touch he is with the American Heartland Voter. That all just speaks for itself -- so, so loudly.

-- Glenn Greenwald

"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/?last_story=/opinion/greenwald/2007/09/18/wrongness/

check out that cartoon on politico.com. i wish it were true. I wish the "faith-based" voters really did leave the GOp. Time will tell. I think tax fears and money will more of an incentive. "faith-based" voters indeed. If money is your god. If the bank is your church

I'm not one to spout conspiracies, and I'm not saying this is one, but why have we heard so much about hillary's healthcare plan and not one peep about Obama's tax overhaul plan he announced this morning? I mean, it's big news and a big policy and yet nothing. Ironically, the only one giving it fair play is Drudgereport.com, who has it on there (with a fair title even).

It just seems odd that the pressa rgues that he doesn't give enough substantive data, and then ignores him when he does.

"Rudy says he's liberals' 'worst nightmare'
By: MIKE ALLEN | 09/18/2007 11:53 AM
"America's mayor" is pushing an electability argument in a bleak landscape for Republicans."

http://www.politico.com/

To the liberals and liberal hating moderates. Take note. Rudy is not what he appears. Not only is he more of the same, he is worse than bush. MArk my words.

And I have no ego. I i did I would be here anymore. That is how th eGOP normal wins. the opposition gets frustrated talking sense to robots and give sin. The only power yo uhave is the power WE give you, as a nation

does anybody have any posts of their own today. Where is the originality you people have been talking about. It's turned into a goose gaggle bashing me today. If you choose. If it makes you people fee less like traitors to your nation

Boy, if only the ideas were as big as the egos around here.

Sorry everyone I know better than to antaganize him I just couldn't help myself.

JimD, interesting thoughts on Lincoln's cabinet. I wonder how many of current (or clinton appointees) cabinet members actually "advise" the president and how many are just mouthpieces for W. It seems that in the past the cabinet really was a group of close advisors, but now a days they are more figureheads.

i may bash you people, from time to time when I feel you propogating. But at least I am not going the Bill O'REIlly and GOP route. You still can post. The liberals Fox and the right silences doesn't have that option. post your posts. you cannot control everything in the world. control yourselves. post your post. If I'mlying tell me how. cacth me one time and I'll leave for a week. Catch me wrong or lying one time and I'm gone for a week. That will let all independant thinkers know

1. I'm speaking the truth.

2. those attacking truths must be liars, no? They must have an agenda.

Research on your onw. find out what time it is. Learn more about yourselves.You would hate me less if you knew yourselves more.

Tell me more about myself andy. Who are you again? Is this your first time onthis site. You can't take one or two statements and tell me what I'm about. I post posts. I post news the dittoheads are hiding from. I attack and am furthest left so it opens the site so you people can say what you really believe. I take the heat from the patriot act cronies so you people are free to say what you want. Support the troops.

Support freedom. you should all be thankng me for opening this site up. But then again, the gop doesn't want that. They want you silenced. "your with us or agaisnt us." I just that makes me, an american former soldier, against what exactly? Fascism? YEs.

Respect what I do. You got a problem go away, or attack me. But don't cry and whine like a elementary school kid when I recepricate. Frikin republcains these days. Bill O and Hannity claiming to have the right to lie and propogate to the eldery because they have free speech, WHILE SILENCING EVERYBODY ON THE LEFT'S free Sppech. What makes you gop'ers so bold to think only you have these rights while attack me. Pratice what you preach. Or stop preaching. I practice what I preach, no? I suggest you do the same gop. Otherwise you look like hypocrites.

Cheney/Rumsfeld 08 slogan-
"1984, Now those were the days!"

"Thanks Chris, now you're a rufus enabler."

"Why you wanna, player hate on me."

zouk, zouk zouk. You coward you. What are you afraid of? Why not post your post.

And to everyone else out there with a jones on rufus. With a complex. It's not health to be so infatuated with me. Really it isn't. Post your post. Ignore me if it make syou feel like a patriot. Ignore me if it makes you feel normal. Or attack and open yourself up to the same. But don't attack me all day and cry and whine when I defend myself and my words honor.

Most researchers had anticipated the complete disappearance of the Arctic ice pack during summer months would happen after the year 2070, he said, but now, "losing summer sea ice cover by 2030 is not unreasonable."

"The strong reduction in just one year certainly raises flags that the ice (in summer) may disappear much sooner than expected," Pedersen said in an ESA statement posted on its Web site Friday, according to AP.

Scores of peer-reviewed scientific studies have documented a steady, worldwide decline in ice cover, from the sea-bound ice covering the North Pole to the vast, land-based ice sheets that cover the Antarctic continent. Glaciers, from Greenland to the Alps to Mount Kilimanjaro near the equator, have also been vanishing.

The loss of land-based ice is predicted to lead to a future rise in sea levels. Most estimates predict a rise ranging from a few inches to a meter or more. A substantial rise in sea level could imperil low-lying areas from Bangladesh to Miami to Lower Manhattan, and could magnify the damage from landfalling hurricanes and cyclones.

BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- Ice cover in the Arctic Ocean, long held to be an early warning of a changing climate, has shattered the all-time low record this summer, scientists say.

Satellite image shows the Northwest Passage, marked in yellow, is now fully navigable.

1 of 2

Additionally, the European Space Agency said nearly 200 satellite photos this month taken together showed an ice-free passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland, according to news reports. Ice was retreating to its lowest level since such images were first taken in 1978, according to a report from The Associated Press.

Using satellite data and imagery, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) now estimates the Arctic ice pack to cover 4.24 million square kilometers (1.63 million square miles) -- equal to just less than half the size of the United States.

That figure is about 20 percent less than the previous all-time low of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) set in September 2005

Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at NSIDC, termed the decline "astounding."

"It's almost an exclamation point on the pronounced ice loss we've seen in the past 30 years," he said.

Rufus this is what Americans fear according to you, in order:
1-Public Speaking
2-Death
3-Obama/Gore 2008
4-The boogey man

Just giving you a little ride so don't jump down my neck. My point is that I don't think many people are "scared to death" of any ticket minus Cheney/Rumsfield 08.

Whoa, did someone walk across your grave too or what!

drindl,

Doris Kearns "Team of Rivals", a recent bestseller on Lincoln's relationship with his cabinet, contains a wealth of information on Chase, Seward, et. al. It is a fascinating book that really shows how Lincoln was underestimated by everyone, how he was secure enough to appoint his major rivals for the presidency to the cabinet. They all thought Lincoln would be their puppet because he was so obviously unsuited to be president. Chase never really changed his opinion, Seward did and became one of his closest colleagues in the government.

I minored in history, belong to a history book club and read voraciously. When I read fiction, it is historical fiction about 60% of the time. I usually get through 1-2 books per week.

'I guess you can't give away Kruggmans lies and rants, much less try to charge for them. NYT heading for an air america exit.'

zouk's here. apres les deluge...

To our ears, Barry Manilow's still making sweet music. Only, this ditty he's singing isn't scheduled for regular airplay. The pop icon has canceled an appearance on The View tomorrow 'cause he dislikes conservative yakker Elisabeth Hasselbeck. Too funny! "I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be on The View tomorrow as scheduled. I had made a request that I be interviewed by Joy, Barbara or Whoopi but not Elisabeth Hasselback.

why are Libs always afraid of everyone?