Isn't 24 Hours A Day Enough to Cover The News?

I know I have griped about the 'unholy 3' cable news nets, MSNBC, CNN and Fox, but today it really hit home for me...

Do these networks have enough time to cover the news? I mean, is 24 hours enough?

I ask, because I had the nets on in the background at work today and, on MSNBC, it seemed that the ONLY story that was getting coverage was the death of Anna Nicole Smith's son. Finally, after an interminable amount of time noticing that they were covering little else, I switched to CNN.

It was no better, but a different topic.

It seems that CNN and CNN Headline News were blowing their tabloid load, if you will, on the baby-napping.

It's not as if this was just the prime story either....at times, it was the only story.

This time around, I did not switch to Fox.

While I was visiting family in California over the past week, I was deluged with both Fox and MSNBC spending their time castigating Nancy Grace. I'm sure it was just jealousy that their own cesspool dwellers had not been the cause of a distressed woman's suicide.

As for Nancy Grace, she is becoming such a caricature that she is at risk of completely morphing into Katherine Harris.

I mention this because I saw virtually nothing on the coverage of the latest violence in Iraq today. What's the deal, 20 deaths not enough for one day? How many have to die each day so that a sliver of coverage can be deflected from Anna Nicole/Babynap/GraceKill?

I just noticed on CNN's web page that a woman ended a bloody attack by biting a 100-pound dog. How many deaths will it take tomorrow in Iraq to prevent that from becoming the only story on MSNBCNNFOX?

It's Intellectual Dishonesty, Stupid

Recently, MSNBC talking head Joe Scarborough argued that much of the problem that George W. Bush has encountered in trying to lead this country stems from his being, as Scarborough put it, intellectually incurious.

In that mindset, the Bush dilemma is more of a matter of his being insulated, discouraging dissent, and not encouraging contrary points-of-view that might make him question his rigid belief system.

While there may be some truth in that, what I find far more troublesome about Mr. Bush is his intellectual dishonesty. I feel that Bush, in defending some of his indefensible positions, continues to frame his debate with intellectually dishonest, false arguments.

Much of the deliberate misrepresentation Bush employs is of the "straw man" variety. Earlier this month, Craig Crawford wrote,

For starters, the war against terrorism and Bush’s way of fighting it are not necessarily the same thing. But this is how the president has managed to frame the debate, as a choice between backing his policies and abandoning the war altogether. “If we retreat before the job is done, this nation would become even more in jeopardy,” he said last week, when he launched another wave of speeches around the country to defend his war policies.

Any president inevitably wins a “me or nothing” debate. That is why Bush frames the war in this way. No one in his right mind is going to say that we should give up and let the terrorists do whatever they like. If voters buy the president’s view that without him the terrorists win, then they will surely take his side.

Bush, and the rest of the lapdogs on the right use a very consistent pattern. They intentionally portray opposition to their views in absurdist ways...are those opposed to warrantless wiretapping really rooting for the terrorists...and then hammer home those false assertions until, they hope, people start believing the lies.

At today's news conference, Bush was reacting to those in the Senate that want to prevent him from changing the way we prosecute and interrogate suspects in the 'war on terror.' To justify his attempt to gut the Geneva Convention and torture at will...to protect himself from being prosecuted for future war crimes, Bush said,

"It's unacceptable to think there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

There's the false argument again. Nobody is suggesting an equivalency here. What Americans are being warned about is a man who is trying to utterly destroy the moral reputation of this country by refusing to abide by global, and Democratic, standards of decency and fairness.

If we need to destroy our principles to defeat terrorists, the terrorists win. It's as simple as that.

Thankfully, some in the GOP are starting to wake up and join Democrats in confronting the president on this. If this intellectually dishonest man who leads our country isn't challenged and taken to task for the damage he is doing, America will be paying for it for decades to come.

Shameless: The Robert Novak Story

As I read Robert Novak's smug column today, on his spin on Richard Armitage as a source in the outing of Valerie Plame, the shamelessness of Mr. Novak comes to mind.

Deliberately dismissing the fact that Novak's initial column referred to not 1, but 2, "senior administration officials" as his source, Mr. Novak almost seems gleeful in rubbing the Armitage disclosure into our face.

Novak writes:

Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me, improbably, into the president's lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he, and not Karl Rove, was the leaker was devastating for the left.

Robert, nobody needed to help you transform yourself into the Bush lapdog, that fact is self-evident to anybody who reads your column.

As far as your claims about the administration's non-involvement, this only answers the question about the behavior of one of your sources. Nothing in today's column discusses the 2nd source.

Additionally, considering all we now know about the involvement of both Rove and Scooter Libby, it would not be surprising to learn that Armitage was part of a co-ordinated campaign to discredit Wilson.

Yes, Armitage was hardly part of that tight inner circle, but there is enough evidence on the involvement of Cheney, Rove and Libby to suggest that Armitage was indeed part of an overall White House effort to spin Wilson's trip and destroy Valeria Plame's cover and career.

I, for one, find it not credible that Armitage and the CRV cabal would, coincidentally, be divulging this same information independent of each other.

As for Robert Novak, his credibility is shot. This self-absorbed talking head has never taken responsibility for exposing Plame's identity. We hear endless attacks from the right-wing, of alleged 'treason' from the left. For my money, it doesn't get more treasonous than what Novak wrote in his column on July 14, 2003.

And the shameless Mr. Novak still is not giving us the real answers behind the column. He continues to do his spinning as the Bush administration's lapdog.

Another Olbermann Moment

Every time I get disgusted by the state of contemporary broadcast newsreading, I remind myself of the ever-increasing output of truly outstanding moments of journalistic expression by Keith Olbermann.

It is a rare talent in these cynical times that is able to find a creative new way to energize the voice of opposition...a voice that has been largely silenced by the media and kept in its place. Mr. Olbermann is that talent. He is a powerhouse. A man with passion and fire. Olbermann speaks the rage that others do not allow themselves to even confront. And he does it with superior eloguence.

I had recently stopped recording Olbermann's daily show, but then resumed it when I realized that this man is capable of delivering a uniquely mesmerizing moment at any given time. Those moments are priceless and not to be missed.

Fortunately, the internet is there for those who missed them when they first aired.

Mr. Olbermann was the compelling voice for me this past September 11th.

It's a voice that needs to be heard on a wider scale.

The transcript of Keith's scathing September 11th deconstruction of the Bushco monarchy, which follows below, can also be found at his Bloggermann website here.

The page I direct you to also has the video link. This is one performance that is truly worth watching.

Transcript:

This hole in the ground


Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.



At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field -- Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is "lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced. An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

(note: vacation has been interrupting the posts...things should get back up to speed next week.)

What Is The Civil War Litmus Test?

I have to admit, I am a bit baffled. How can reporters who cover Iraq, especially considering the focus on increased sectarian violence, deny that the Iraqis are not already engaged in a civil war?

Today in the Washington Post, Ann Scott Tyson writes about a new Pentagon report that showed that sectarian violence is at its highest level in more than 2 years.

It's one thing when she uses the language of denial when referring to what is included in the Pentagon report. For example, in the first paragraph she writes that, according to the study,

"preventing civil war is now the most urgent mission of the growing contingent of 140,000 U.S. troops in the country."

Similarly, Tyson writes:

"Sustained ethno-sectarian violence is the greatest threat to security and stability in Iraq," the report said. "Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq," it said, while maintaining that civil war can still be prevented. "Coalition forces and the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] are responding by increased targeting of both Sunni and Shi'a death squads."

It is no surprise that official reporting from the military would deny that a civil war is underway. But what about the rest of Tyson's reporting.

As early as paragraph 3, Tyson writes,

"The Pentagon report, though consistent with what news media have reported for months, is significant because it represents an official acknowledgment of trends that are widely believed to be driving the country toward full-scale civil war."

Driving the country toward full-scale civil war?

According to Tyson,

In a grim revelation, the report cited the Baghdad coroner's office stating that it received 1,600 bodies in June and more than 1,800 in July, of which 90 percent were assessed to be the result of executions.

Moreover, the report said, the revenge killings perpetrated by Sunni and Shiite death squads are spreading outside the Iraqi capital into the far reaches of the country, from Basra in the south to Mosul and Kirkuk in the north. Iran and Syria are actively supporting forces fueling the unrest among religious factions, it said.

So if 1,800 slaughtered by sectarian death squads in a month does not represent a civil war in full bloom, what does qualify as a civil war?

Tyson, quoting from the report, writes that the number of weekly attacks in Iraq is now "at nearly 800, the highest level since the Pentagon began gathering the statistics in April 2004."

When does civil war terminology kick in? 1,000 attacks? 5,000?

At the end of the article, Tyson quotes 3 Democrats. Not one states the contrary position that Iraq is already in a civil war.

To make matters more surreal, for her final quote, Tyson gives Senate Minority Leader Harry Reed the last word. Reed says, "We will not abandon our brave troops, nor can we afford to abandon Iraq. But we also can't afford to go along with the Bush administration's failed policies any longer."

So, not only is this not a civil war yet, but even Democrats apparently consider leaving Iraq the equivalent of 'abandoning our troops?'

In the latest CNN poll, 61% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. Why is the anti-war viewpoint so under-represented in the American media?

Bush The Divider

Earlier this year, on April 18th, George Bush defended Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld against a chorus of calls for his resignation. According to CNN:

"On Friday I stood up and said, 'I don't appreciate the speculation about Don Rumsfeld; he's doing a fine job; I strongly support him.'"

Pressed to respond to critics who say he is ignoring the advice of respected former military commanders, Bush vigorously stood by Rumsfeld.

"I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision," he said. "And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He's not only transforming the military, he's fighting a war on terror. He's helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld.

"I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

Flash ahead to a press conference held by President Bush on August 21st, where he said,

"You know, it's an interesting debate we're having in America about how we ought to handle Iraq. There's a lot of people -- good, decent people -- saying withdrawal now. They're absolutely wrong. It would be a huge mistake for this country."

In a speech Thursday at the American Legion National Convention in Salt Lake City, the president repeated that theme:

"Still, there are some in our country who insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic, but they could be -- they could not be more wrong."

What Bush was doing was attempting to give the impression that he appreciates and respects the viewpoint of those who oppose the war. Allegedly, he merely thinks we are just wrong-headed and misguided.

But, he doesn't really value dissent and he views his domestic opponents as appeasers and traitors.

Bush placed an interesting clue, earlier in his Salt Lake City speech:

"The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. On one side are those who believe in the values of freedom and moderation -- the right of all people to speak, and worship, and live in liberty. And on the other side are those driven by the values of tyranny and extremism -- the right of a self-appointed few to impose their fanatical views on all the rest. As veterans, you have seen this kind of enemy before. They're successors to Fascists, to Nazis, to Communists, and other totalitarians of the 20th century. And history shows what the outcome will be: This war will be difficult; this war will be long; and this war will end in the defeat of the terrorists and totalitarians, and a victory for the cause of freedom and liberty."

Those we are fighting are kissing cousins of 'Fascists' and 'Nazis.' Hmmm, what does that make those who oppose the Bush policies?

It was no mistake that Bush used that language, because Donald Rumsfeld made the following comments just 2 days earlier, to the same audience:

1919 — turned out to be one of the pivotal junctures in modern history with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, the creation of the League of Nations, a treaty and an organization intended to make future wars unnecessary and obsolete. Indeed, 1919 was the beginning of a period where, over time, a very different set of views would come to dominate public discourse and thinking in the West.

Over the next decades, a sentiment took root that contended that if only the growing threats that had begun to emerge in Europe and Asia could be accommodated, then the carnage and the destruction of then-recent memory of World War I could be avoided.

It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among Western democracies. When those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored. Indeed, in the decades before World War II, a great many argued that the fascist threat was exaggerated or that it was someone else’s problem. Some nations tried to negotiate a separate peace, even as the enemy made its deadly ambitions crystal clear. It was, as Winston Churchill observed, a bit like feeding a crocodile, hoping it would eat you last.

There was a strange innocence about the world. Someone recently recalled one U.S. senator’s reaction in September of 1939 upon hearing that Hitler had invaded Poland to start World War II. He exclaimed:

“Lord, if only I had talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided!”

I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today — another enemy, a different kind of enemy — has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history’s lessons.

We need to consider the following questions, I would submit:

*With the growing lethality and the increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased?

*Can folks really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?

*Can we afford the luxury of pretending that the threats today are simply law enforcement problems, like robbing a bank or stealing a car; rather than threats of a fundamentally different nature requiring fundamentally different approaches?

*And can we really afford to return to the destructive view that America, not the enemy, but America, is the source of the world’s troubles?

Rumsfeld added:

"...and that is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.

"Our enemies know this well. They frequently invoke the names of Beirut or Somalia — places they see as examples of American retreat and American weakness. And as we’ve seen — even this month — in Lebanon, they design attacks and manipulate the media to try to demoralize public opinion."

I get it...Rummy sees those opposed to wasting all our resources on a war started under false pretenses, an occupation with a bad plan, no true strategy, and no end in sight, as a position of moral confusion. Further, he sees it playing into our enemies hands. And the media supposedly falls for it, thus turning the public against a righteous cause. Uh-huh...that makes loads of sense.

In that American Legion speech, Rumsfeld crosses the line. He dares to equate those who question the misguided occupation of Iraq with the appeasers of the Nazis.

There have been those who have very eloquently ripped Rumsfeld a new one for this arrogance. If you have not seen Keith Olbermann's brilliant response, you can access it here.

My point is that Rumsfeld's comments, and similar attacks on our patriotism by Dick Cheney do not happen in a vacuum. It is an organized, coordinated strategy. A strategy that begins and ends with George Bush.

I have heard and read much about a 'good cop, bad cop' scenario being played out here. However, the bottom line is really quite simple.

Mr. Bush is not seeking to unite this country. He is a divider. And he is deliberately trying to polarize us because he knows the only chance the GOP has this November, aside from rigging the election machines, is energizing the fringe-right base...the only people still supporting their policies.

If Bush disputes Rumsfeld's remarks he needs to do more than speak out. He needs to fire the man.

This will not happen because Bush is in lockstep with Rumsfeld's sentiments on the subject. In fact, Bush is hiding behind Rumsfeld and Cheney. He is allowing them to toss out the red meat, while he maintains a posture of civility.

Unfortunately, as presidents go, he is not an especially good actor.

There is a move afoot to make those in the House and Senate go on-record with a vote of 'no confidence' on Rumsfeld. It is election-campaign posturing that the GOP has always been good at, but the Dems have fallen flat on. I am encouraged that we are finally learning how to play the game.

Rumsfeld needs to be held accountable. George Bush needs to be held accountable for what Rumsfeld and Cheney say, as do those who serve in the House and Senate.

You wanna toss out words like 'appeasement' and 'moral confusion?' As Rumsfeld's boss, you want to let those charges stand?

Fine, but at least be honest about it...Mr. Divider.

The 'S' Files: Installment 1

Sometimes you feel like a blurb...sometimes you don't.

In the interest of filling my need for the occasional random musing, I hereby debut the 's' files.

'S,' as in 's'o many topics, 's'o little time....short, scattershot, scootmandubious snippets.

S-s-s-s-o......

* How ironic, Spike Lee produces an outstanding 4-1/2 hour retrospective on Katrina and the only people who can see it are those who can afford to shell out the extra money for HBO. So much for the commentary about the haves and have-nots.

* The vultures are not done picking through John Mark Karr's bones yet. Now, in an effort to give Nancy Grace and Rita Cosby a reason to exist, we are being treated to what must happen to Karr now for possessing child pornography.

Yes, he does seem rather pathetic and anybody who possesses child porn should have to answer for it, but how many of them are guaranteed to be damaged goods for the rest of their lives?

And is it really worth taking away from coverage of stories that matter? Aren't lives still being lost in Iraq?

Keep those nostrils flared Nancy, and don't lose that husky charm Rita, you'll find a story deserving of your talents soon enough.

* MSNBC covered today, for what felt like an eternity, a police chase of a catering truck, complete with aerial photos from a helicopter. Was this the OJ moment revisited?

Nah, it was a woman avoiding the cops after a traffic incident.

I will admit that I did not check out the other cable news nets for fear that they may actually be following suit. The story was so big that, as of this writing, it has yielded 1 local update in a google news search.

Heckuva job Dan Abrams. That's how to battle Fox and CNN.

*Despite having nothing new on my blog for the past couple of days, I received a huge spike in hits. Upon checking my web-stat records, I noticed it was a slew of folks googling CNN news reader Kyra Phillips.

When Media Matters linked to my Kyra Phillips piece a couple of weeks ago, where I griped that she asked the soldier who exposed Abu Ghraib if he felt like a traitor, it produced virtually no new hits.

Then suddenly, in the past 24 hours, Phillips' name produced a flood.

Unfortunately, it was a flood of people who wanted to know what she said in the bathroom while her microphone was left on.

Imagine their disappointment when their searches led to a story about the disgraceful lack of professionalism, and attendant right-wing bias, in the cable news industry.

Dishing about in-laws is so much more entertaining.

How The Washington Post Aided Karl Rove Today

In a Washington Post article on Iraq posturing in the upcoming mid-term campaign, comes the following quote:

"They want to give us this cut-and-run moniker and accuse us of a pre-9/11 mentality," said Diane Farrell, a Democrat who is challenging Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.). "I absolutely refuse to be manipulated by Karl Rove and company."

Sad to say, the same can't be said for Jim VandeHei and Zachary A. Goldfarb. Their article plays into Rove's hands.

The piece, titled, "Democrats Split Over Timetable For Troops," starts with the following:

Most Democratic candidates in competitive congressional races are opposed to setting a timetable for pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, rejecting pressure from liberal activists to demand a quick end to the three-year-old military conflict.

So, the only people who want a timetable for pulling out U.S. troops are "liberal activists?"

In a CNN poll earlier this month, this question was asked,

"Which comes closer to your view about U.S. troops in Iraq? The U.S. should set a timetable for withdrawal by announcing that it will remove all of its troops from Iraq by a certain date. The U.S. should keep troops in Iraq as long as necessary without setting any timetable for withdrawal."

The result? By a 57-40% plurality, most Americans want some kind of timetable.

Why, instead of labelling those who favor a timetable with wording that conjures up images of left-wing extremism, wasn't the reality of the polling on this issue part of the story?

Ironically, the following is buried later in the story:

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, a nonpartisan polling organization, found this month that the public is evenly split over pulling out U.S. troops, with 48 percent in favor of keeping troops in Iraq and 46 percent in favor of withdrawal. Yet even among those who favor bringing U.S. troops home, only a third support doing so immediately. Asked another way, 52 percent of those polled said they would favor setting a timetable for getting out, while 41 percent would oppose that.

That seems to me to be a rather convoluted way of describing the public's mood in Iraq. And what of even mentioning other polls that clearly support a majority favoring ending our involvement, such as the poll I cited above?

This introduction sets the tone for the entire article.

The 3rd paragraph begins this way:

The large number of Democrats opposed to a strict timeline for ending the military operations runs contrary to the assertion by President Bush and top Republicans that Democrats want to "cut and run" amid mounting casualties and signs of civil war.

One would think that this would be followed up by how Democrats view the official GOP position. For me, the counter to a 'cut-and-run' charge would be 'lie-and-die.' It is no less offensive. If the position on the left is going to be equated with cowardice, why treat the official GOP position with kid gloves? I just don't get it.

The bottom line, though, is that nothing in this article comes close to describing the president's position that way.

Part of the problem is that the article is essentially an examination of an unwillingness by many Democratic candidates to call for a pullout in Iraq. Because of this, one almost gets the sense that supporting an end to our occupation in Iraq is a fringe position.

It's rather subtle, but for me, it demonstrates how Karl Rove gets assisted by the Washington Press Corps on a daily basis.

How Would Jesus Vote?

At the website for Focus On the Family, one of their FAQs is, "Can you give me evidence to suggest my vote makes a difference?"

The response begins with a reference to some very close elections and then makes the following observation:

It is a moral outrage that more Christians do not take their voting responsibilities seriously. If they did, this would be a very different nation, and a better one. But for reasons beyond my comprehension, evangelicals are either too involved, too preoccupied, or too disinterested to hold our elected officials accountable and keep our democracy on track.

Wow, am I behind the times. Here I thought that the evangelical right-wing was firmly in control. Apparently, not even close.

That point leads to this revelation:

Because so few citizens vote, many of us are unaware that a small minority actually dominates national politics (not to mention local elections).

Gotcha loud-and-clear on that one.

Still later:

And obviously, more is at stake than merely the influence of chief-executive policy for a four-year term -- judicial appointments made by the president can directly impact our culture and our families for half a lifetime or more.

We are most definitely on the same page here!

The final 2 paragraphs of the response sum it up:

Your vote is crucial if we are to reintroduce the traditional, family-friendly values on which our nation was founded. A great member of the British Parliament, Edmund Burke, said something 250 years ago that still resonates today: "All that is necessary for evil to prevail in the world is that good men do nothing."

So get involved! The same Jesus who multiplied the young lad's loaves and fishes will be faithful to multiply the efforts of those of us who honor His name in the political arena.

So, here is what I was wondering....

If Jesus were orchestrating the vote, would He be in favor of letting the poor suffer while the rich get tax breaks?

Would Jesus have let New Orleans turn into the tragedy it became in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

Speaking of tragedies, would Jesus have invaded Iraq? I realize that the vast majority of Iraqis are muslims and are, if you listen to these people, doomed to Hell. But is that Jesus' desired result if we are the ones killing them and sending them to the eternal hot spot?

What about the babies our bombs have killed? Of course, it's important that our corporations have access to the Iraqi oilfields and that Halliburton get their rightful share of the reconstruction pie, but come on, these babies haven't had a chance yet to fully embrace the love behind the greed and violence.

Given the choice, how could somebody not choose the religion of a nation run by a 'decider' imbued by the spirit of God Himself? Oh, the victims are less than a year old? Collateral damage is part of God's plan, don't ya know.

So, all you spiritual soldiers for God, make sure you go to the polls and vote correctly.

Surely Jesus would not want you to vote for the party that seeks to help the poor, thinks of war as a last resort, practices diplomacy to keep the peace, and asks the rich to pay their rightful share.

Let us pray.

And when you're done, please don't forget to send in your money.

What Exactly Is Ethically Challenging About Embryonic Stem-Cell Research?

It happens so often that it is easy to become immune to major media outlets adopting the language of President Bush and the extremist right-wing of the GOP.

Another example was found today in a story in the Los Angeles Times, concerning a possible new approach to gathering embryonic stem cells that would allegedly not result in the destruction of the embryo.

Right at the start, Karen Kaplan writes, "Scientists announced today the creation of human embryonic stem cells using a technique that does not require the destruction of any embryos, a development that offers a path to break the political logjam over the highly touted but ethically troubled research."

Ethically troubled? According to who? Certainly not the vast majority of Americans who have indicated in polls that they are in favor of such research.

And what about the insincerity on this aspect of the issue from right-wing fanatics represented by George Bush, who himself, equates embryonic stem cell research with murder? For the record, while Tony Snow apologized for using the 'm' word, Bush never did for saying it was the "taking of innocent life."

The proposal for embryonic stem-cell research is to make positive use of the thousands of discarded embryos being harvested at fertility clinics. If the Bushies really thought it was a matter of ethics, why have they not tried closing down these clinics and sought to prevent so many embryos from being harvested and discarded?

It's the same type of hypocrisy one sees when a right-winger says that we had to go into Iraq, but then has no response when asked why we didn't invade other countries ruled by tyrants, such as North Korea.

Back to my question...what makes this so ethically troubling for Ms. Kaplan?

As one reads further into the article, the obligatory moral equivalency comes into play, with both sides getting their punches in. Maybe the L.A. Times science writer should do that with the theory of evolution, too. What's the difference?

It is no surprise that Kaplan gives the evangelicals the following parting shot:

Richard M. Doerflinger, secretariat for pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in Washington, D.C., said the safety of the single-cell biopsy procedure had not been scientifically established.

"Some embryos do not survive the process, and some survivors may have long-term effects later in life," he said.

Fertility specialists who perform the procedure — dubbed pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, or PGD — acknowledge that there have not been any scientific efforts to study its effect on embryos or to track the children after they are born.

Between 20% and 25% of couples that use PGD to make sure their children don't wind up with genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis end up with healthy babies through in vitro fertilization, said Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson, an OB-GYN and professor of molecular and human genetics at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. That compares to a success rate of 28.3% for all IVF patients, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"There's every reason to think that it's safe," Simpson said. "But the bottom line is, there are insufficient data to prove that it's safe or not safe."

Whether stem cells derived from this technique could be eligible for federal funds may hinge on that question. Congress forbids the funding of research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death.

"Can I reassure people who have put this language on our appropriation that not even one time in a thousand a single-cell biopsy won't harm an embryo?" said Dr. James F. Battey, who chairs the stem cell task force at the National Institutes of Health. Without the necessary research, he said, "I can't do that."

This man is concerned with 1 time in a thousand when there are millions that would be helped if embryonic stem-cell research led to cures?

Maybe somebody can pose the following question to this representative of the American Taliban...why can't you share the same concern and compassion for living Americans with incurable diseases and debilitating conditions, as you do for embryos that are harvested and later destroyed?

Senator McCain's Doublespeak On Iraq

I find it rather humorous that Sen. John McCain finally criticized President Bush on Iraq today.

According to the Associated Press, Sen. McCain said, "I think one of the biggest mistakes we made was underestimating the size of the task and the sacrifices that would be required. Stuff happens, mission accomplished, last throes, a few dead-enders. I'm just more familiar with those statements than anyone else because it grieves me so much that we had not told the American people how tough and difficult this task would be."

Well, yeah, John, that's correct. You didn't.

And what motivated McCain to speak out today? A campaign.

McCain made his remarks campaining for GOP Sen. Mike DeWine, who is in a tight race for re-election in Ohio.

But, one could argue, he was out stumping for himself and posturing for '08.

Here's the problem...McCain isn't offering any solutions. It's nice that he finally admits that there's trouble in Iraq, but McCain seems to think the main issue is that Bush didn't say what the real task was and does not communicate the tasks ahead.

There's far more to it than that, of course. If Bush had suggested going into Iraq to do nation-building,he never would have been given the authorization to do it. We were brought into Iraq under false pretenses. And now, it would seem, the GOP would like us to remain indefinitely.

Further, according to AP:

"McCain said at an appearance in suburban Cleveland that if U.S. troops announce a specific date to leave Iraq, insurgents will bide their time until they have an opportunity to act without interference.

"'The chaos that would ensue would have direct implications for our national security,' McCain said."

What exactly does that mean? We will never be allowed to leave until every last "insurgent" is eradicated? On that platform, we would never be allowed to bring our troops home, or redeploy them.

And what about the sectarian violence Mr. McCain, or do you agree that this is not a civil war?

I tried to get more answers by going to McCain's 'Straight Talk America' website and getting a better idea of what John McCain would do in Iraq.

At his site, you will find where to send money...you will read about all the people who have praised him...you will get ads for McCain books and t-shirts.

But good luck on finding anything meaningful, or substantive, on Iraq.

Straight talk? Doublespeak is more like it.

The Bush Show: Let's Go To The Transcript

I will make things easy for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and give a short definition of torture. In its purest form, torture is being subjected to a George Bush press conference where he smirks at the worst possible moments, goes into occasional bouts of inarticulateness (alternating with petulance), and continues to pronounce 'nuclear' as 'nucular.'

Thankfully, I don't have to watch the display again, as there's a transcript to refer to. So heres a look at some of the key points from today's event.

1) Over 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month, but it's still not a civil war. No, it's just the work of "extremists and terrorists."

It's a good thing the man gets daily briefings, because, he admits, "I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm concerned about that, of course."

To a degree, that is correct. Bush is merely concerned about people talking about civil war. As far as civil war itself, he could care less.

I am not sure how many Iraqis need to die in sectarian violence before the president would be able to acknowledge that a civil war is already in place, but I suspect he would sooner admit that maybe God needed an extra day to fashion the universe.

2) The occupation of Iraq will have no end under the policies of the Bush Administration.

Bush says "we are not leaving." Despite the fact that it is clear we are not wanted there...despite the fact that our presence was never about nation-building...we are to remain there indefinitely.

The implications, obviously, are enormous.

Our economy will get drained, our military will remain targets, and our ability to successfully fight Al Qaeda and terrorism will continue to be compromised, because of the enormous resources being used to prop up the Iraqi government.

3) Those who oppose the war are "good, decent people."

.....in case anybody thought that those opposed to the war were helping the terrorists.

I am glad he repeated it more than once. 3 times in fact.

He also made clear the disaster that would happen if we pulled out.

Interestingly, resultant instability did not enter the minds of the neo-cons before they stepped in.

If only George had listened to dad.

4) One very important reason we must remain in Iraq is that "it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales."

And we all know that the Iraqi oil is the reason we went in. After all, lots of nations have been ruled by tyrants, but invading them will not benefit the corporatists at ExxonMobil. If the Sudan's exports included petroleum, to go with their cotton and peanuts, we'd be there too.

5) Halliburton and friends need more revenue sources.

As Bush bluntly states, "I'm announcing that America will send more aid to support humanitarian and reconstruction work in Lebanon, for a total of more than $230 million. These funds will help the Lebanese people rebuild their homes and return to their towns and communities. The funds will help the Lebanese people restore key bridges and roads. The funds will help the Lebanese people rehabilitate schools so the children can start their school year on time this fall.

"I directed that an oil spill response team be sent to assist the Lebanese government in cleaning up an oil slick that is endangering coastal communities; proposing a $42 million package to help train and equip Lebanon's armed forces."

What is never said by Bush is how those millions will be spent...which companies will get the money and contracts. He knows that as long as there is total GOP control, nobody will even investigate this. Certainly, the news media won't.

After all, nobody was ever held accountable for the misuse of funds in Iraq, not to mention misuse of funds after hurricane Katrina.

So why start now?

I am so glad that there are transcripts to refer to. Wouldn't it be nice if news organizations examined prior transcripts and held this administration accountable for all of their prior deceits and failures?

When is a Civil War Not a Civil War?

As recently as August 7th, president George W. Bush made the following incisive comment on the state of affairs in Iraq: “You know, I hear people say, Well, civil war this, civil war that. The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.”

Which brings us to a story published in today's New York Times, concerning the fear Iraqis have that even prevents them from worshipping at their neighborhood mosque.

According to that story:

Across central Iraq, more and more Iraqis associate the neighborhood mosque, the cornerstone of life in the Muslim world, with the Kalashnikov rather than the Koran.

Exploding sectarian violence has undermined the mosque’s traditional role as a gathering place, further unraveling the country’s communal fabric. Mosque attendance has plummeted, according to clerics and government officials, as tens of thousands of Iraqis like Mr. Ali choose to pray at home out of safety concerns. Gatherings at Friday Prayer are sometimes one-tenth the size of what they once were, and parents no longer send their children to mosques for spiritual lessons.

The report adds:

The decline in mosque attendance is a noticeable reversal of a trend that began right after the American invasion of 2003, when religious freedom flowered and worshipers, especially long-oppressed Shiites, flocked to mosques.

Now, however, mosques have become a frequent flash point in the widening Sunni-versus-Shiite warfare.

Assaults on mosques have risen steadily since 2003, but soared after the bombing of a sacred Shiite shrine in Samarra last February, which unleashed a torrent of sectarian bloodletting. There were at least 60 major attacks on Shiite mosques and scores of minor ones in the first half of this year, a figure equivalent to the total in 2005, according to statistics from the Shiite Endowment, which administers Shiite mosques for the government.

Earlier this month, a suicide bomber detonated an explosives belt outside the revered Shiite shrine of Ali in Najaf, killing at least 35 people and wounding more than 120, including Iranian pilgrims.

About 160 Sunni mosques were damaged by rampaging Shiites in the immediate aftermath of the Samarra bombing, a spokesman for the Sunni Endowment said. Shiite militiamen also seized and kept at least 24 Sunni mosques.

Militias regard mosques as either places of refuge or tempting targets. Entire congregations have been wiped out by car bombs. Gunmen abduct imams, and sometimes shoot them outright. American and Iraqi forces often storm the buildings hunting for guerrillas. Airstrikes obliterate minarets.

Sunni mosques have become rallying points for neighborhood militias, blaring “God is great” from their loudspeakers to warn of the approach of Shiite gunmen. Violence around mosques is so rampant that in June the government imposed a curfew on Fridays from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., the peak prayer time.

Imams walk around with handguns stuffed into their robes, and many mosques look more like prisons than prayer halls, fortified with concertina wire, metal detectors and guards behind mounted machine guns.

So, what are we to make of this, President Bush?

If it is not civil war, exactly what the hell is it?

This Is News???

Does anybody else think the unholy trio of pseudo-news networks are beginning to resemble a macabre 3-ring circus?

All it takes is the tiniest oozing of sleaze and the sharks at Fox, CNN and MSNBC smell the blood and go into a veritable feeding frenzy.

Oh no, a plane is landing with just 3 wheels...please, oh please...let this end badly so we can have news footage to sustain us for days, weeks, months. In the meantime, let's show nothing else for 2 hours, or however long it takes the plane to land/crash.

A pretty, young, causasian woman is missing on an exotic island. Does anyone have rights to the reality series? Why that footage of her in the back seat of a car is just so photogenic. One could almost think she was once actually...alive. Just how many ways can we beat this dead horse? Hmmmm, maybe "The Ghost Whisperer" can step in and help? Is John Edwards available?

And now, stepping-up-to-the-plate, JonBenet's secret admirer, Kid killer Karr.

So what if he mentioned picking her up from school (isn't Christmas recess in Colorado longer than 1 day?), drugging her (those invisible drugs that don't show up in an autopsy report) and accidentally killing her (I thought the garotte was supposed to twist the 'other' way)?

Hey, maybe he did it, maybe he didn't, but damn, he looks like a modern-day Norman Bates. Let's squeeze all the juice out.

Besides, covering this story non-stop gives everybody a break from the gruesome realities of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Israel.

Oh, and are people still dying in Darfur?

Coverage would be so much more viewer-friendly if the victims were white, don't ya think?

Enter Michael Schiavo

In the Terry Schiavo case, the GOP was very quick to insinuate itself into the very private matter of whether a person could be allowed to die with dignity, or have their life unnecessarily prolonged with virtually no quality to that life.

Who can forget the diagnosis made by Sen. Bill Frist who determined that she was "not in a persistent vegetative" state on the basis of watching a highly-edited home video?

According to a Washington Post account at the time:

"I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office," he said in a lengthy speech in which he quoted medical texts and standards. "She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

Of course, other members of the GOP were falling all over themselves to exploit the issue, until they looked at their internal polling and realized that they were committing political suicide. It's hard to say which of the Bush brothers looked stupider, Jeb, or meddler-in-chief George, who cut short a vacation to sign emergency legislation on Schiavo that would press federal courts to intervene.

It was a private battle between Terry Schiavo's parents and Terry's husband Michael, who was demonized in a manner the GOP usually reserves for Democratic politicians who have served in our nation's military.

Unfortunately for the GOP, they found out that the public was overwhelmingly behind letting Terry Schiavo die with dignity. It helped that they lost every single court battle on this. Considering how the Republicans have been stacking the judiciary, that's saying something.

So now, Michael Schiavo is back. Amy Goodnaugh has an excellent piece in the New York Times on Mr. Schiavo's commitment to return the favor by fighting against those who tried so desperately to intrude on his life and force Terry Schiavo to exist with no quality of life, complete with a feeding tube eternally lodged down her throat.

Schiavo appeared on behalf of Ned Lamont in his successful race against Joe Lieberman and he plans many more campaign stops on behalf of efforts to defeat others who played politics with the life of his brain-dead wife.

If this man only swings a couple of seats over to the Democrats he will have accomplished an awful lot. We should all wish him well. The Times story refers to a PAC he has set up. Contributing to it would be money well spent.

As they say, revenge is a dish best served cold. I see some Republicans getting a veritable blizzard heaped upon their dinner plates.

Kyra Phillips to Joe Darby: Do You See Yourself As A Traitor?

I had CNN on in the background at work today and was modestly interested in catching Joe Darby being interviewed on CNN by midday anchor Kyra Phillips.

Mr. Darby was the American soldier responsible for exposing the scandal at Abu Ghraib. He had inadvertently been given a CD containing the incriminating photos and, after some soul-searching, reported them.

For his trouble he got outed by Donald Rumsfeld, while he was still with his unit, and came home to the scorn of his neighbors. It got so bad for him that he had to leave his home.

Darby is back in the news because of a piece on him that is going to run in GQ next week. He is scheduled to appear with Anderson Cooper later this evening.

During the course of the interview, Phillips brought up the troubles that Darby faced for having the courage to expose what happened at Abu Ghraib. She then asked Darby the following question: "Do you see yourself as a traitor?"

My jaw dropped. I was dumbfounded.

Normally, the question would be, 'do you see yourself as a hero,' or perhaps, 'what do you say to those who have called you a traitor and questioned your patriotism?'

But this person, who passes for an anchor at a major news network, deliberately worded it to put Darby on the defensive.

Not knowing much about Phillips I checked out Media Matters and found that she had been singled out previously for alleging that Karl Rove was being smeared as part of an organized campaign.

Not really surprising then that she demonstrated such a high level of insensitivity. I suppose she is a partisan GOP hack, after all. Hopefully, somebody will take her to task for her highly offensive question.

It is precisely because of episodes like this that I find CNN almost as hard to digest as Fox. After all, isn't another anchor there Limbaugh's ex, Daryn Kagan?

Joe Just Doesn't Get It

David Lightman has an interesting piece on Joe Lieberman in today's Hartford Courant.

I think the story was ostensibly written to draw a bit of sympathy for Sen. Lieberman. It basically concluded that he only found his comfort level at the very end of the primary and, after personal tragedies and failures, was morphing back to the Old Joe.

I think that's what I found so irksome...it's always about Joe.

I am pretty sure I know why Joe Lieberman lost and why I can't see him staying in the party. It's much more than the fact that he supports George Bush on the war. It's the total lack of respect he displays to those of us who are anti-war. That is his unpardonable sin.

Here's an especially illuminating passage from Lightman's report:

But by fall 2005, Lieberman had become even more vocal about Iraq, and those longtime friends tried to advise him to keep quieter, or at least emphasize his other work.

Instead, Lieberman returned from a trip to Iraq and seemed more alone than ever in his party. He detailed his views in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, and a few days later, President Bush quoted his Democratic friend extensively in a highly publicized speech.

The old friends called and visited and pleaded with him to trot out his Democratic bona fides. Churn out press releases, they said, make a major speech - anything to cement the idea in the public mind that he voted against Bush on nearly everything else. Stress your Democratic loyalty on other issues, they urged.

Instead, said one friend, "We saw a level of righteous indignation. You can call it hubris, or you can call it simply someone who believes in what he's doing." But he thought he was right on Iraq, "and that was that," the friend said.

It was more than Lieberman thinking he was right on Iraq, it was his using the dirty GOP tactics of questioning the patriotism of those who are anti-war. It was his public assumption that anyone who questioned the competence or tactics of George Bush was only doing so for partisan reasons....that it was somehow un-American.

Lightman writes:

The old Joe seemed to be back. Certainly the moral side was there. "He truly believes in public service, and truly believes things have become too partisan," said Riddle. "He believes it in his bones and in his core."

I think Mr. Lieberman has his priorities misplaced.

What he still doesn't understand is that there is no bipartisanship because the voice of the Democrats have been entirely shut down in Washington. The GOP controls the whole ballgame and, at a minimum, half the country have been silenced and cowed into invisibility. Lieberman's buddies have allowed no investigations to go forward, no room to debate.

The Senator from Connecticut doesn't want bipartisanship, he wants people to accept our presence in Iraq because he feels it's valid. In the face of everything we now know about what got us in, the lies and deception, and what keeps us there, sitting ducks in a civil war, Joe thinks we should just shut up and get behind George Bush in lockstep.

While more blood is shed, and money sucked out of the economy, with each passing day.

That's not bipartisanship Mr. Lieberman, it's insanity.

Newsday's Craig Gordon Allows GOP Talking Points To Go Unchallenged

The GOP cannot distort the public dialogue on the so-called War on Terror alone. They need assistance from the media. And they receive plenty.

On page A19 of Saturday's 8/12 edition of Newsday, Craig Gordon has the byline on a story headlined, "GOP may get a boost."

This is the same man who Friday wrote, "Terror War Doubts Rise." Somebody must have gotten to him.

Some nuggets from Saturday's column (not labeled as an op-ed, by the way):

"In one remarkable sign of public discontent with Bush, voters actually give Democrats a slight edge over Republicans on who is better equipped to handle terrorism in some recent polls."

(why is it so remarkable? Didn't 9/11 happen on the GOP watch?)

and

"Republicans have wasted no time trying to turn the defeat of Lieberman by anti-war newcomer Ned Lamont and the foiled British plot into a political one-two punch to whack Democrats.

"Republican pollster Whit Ayres argued that the two events taken together remind Americans - even those who have soured on Bush's position on the Iraq war - of the imminent threat and why they supported Republicans in the past to stand up to it.

"'The country is not going to turn to the anti-war party in the time of war,' Ayres said."

This was not a story that was devoid of Democratic representation. However, certain key GOP themes are allowed to float by, unchallenged. Again, why should an article indicate that it would be "remarkable" for the public to perceive Democrats as stronger against terrorism. It is the media who are responsible for continually hammering out the GOP message that they are somehow better for National Security when nothing could be further from the truth.

Also, why is the Ned Lamont win being portrayed as a negative, as if the anti-war view does not have broad and popular support?

We really cannot allow the media to become co-conspirators of misinformation, along with the GOP.

We need to call them out every time they insult our intelligence this way.

The Impossibility Of Winning The War On Terror

Every day we are bombarded constantly in the media with the words 'war on terror.' However, nobody ever addresses the question of how we can know that the war is won.

The answer, if we dare to be truthful, is that there is no practical victory in a war on terror.

The only way to win such a war would be to incapacitate every fanatic. And fanatics, including those of the suicide martyr variety, are created anew every day.

What military action against terrorist groups has done is exponentially increase the number of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. How many hearts and minds have we totally lost in Iraq? Sadly, Israel may have committed the same blunder with Hezbolah. Destroying the infrastructure of Lebanon, with the high number of civilian casualties will only make more people inclined to be martyrs.

A military response to terrorism is not the solution, but when such action is warranted there should be a specific goal of destroying the leadership and infrastructure of the terrorist groups that threaten us. In Afghanistan it made sense to go in after 9/11 because the country was essentially a training ground for terrorists, and we could not let that slaughter go unanswered. It was a specific response to an attack.

But where is Osama bin Laden? He is still at large. And, because we have spread out our focus and resources, the Taliban and fanatical warlords are once again building their power base in Afghanistan.

Additionally, what have we done about the Afghan contribution to the world opium supply?

Sadly, with the war on terror a never-ending proposition, all we sacrifice is our civil liberties.

We are constantly being asked to give back freedoms that have always been our way of life. But when will we get them back, if the war on terror will truly never come to an absolute end?

The bottom line; for every civil liberty we agree to part with we give the terrorists a victory. Because they will have found a way to transform our way of life.

And not for the better.

The Importance Of Watching The Media: Case in Point -- Mike Allen

One of the reasons I have such high regard for Media Matters for America is their commitment to the pursuit of truth through documentation of the media.

The news that gets made is only part of the equation. If the transmitters of that news send it out through an altered lens, we risk the revision of history. That is something we cannot allow to happen. At least, not without a fight.

A perfect example of the occasional disconnect between news and reporting is what happened this week in Connecticut.

First, and most importantly, news was made. Ned Lamont made a thunderous political statement with his defeat of incumbent Senator Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary.

However, news was also distorted. Time magazine White House Correspondent Mike Allen in his web column, The Allen Report, issued what seemed like a summation of GOP talking points on the election result.

It is one thing for a Fox pundit to regurgitate GOP talking points; it is quite another for an allegedly impartial journalist to do so.

So what does one make of a web column that has the Time White House correspondent voluminously quoting GOP operatives while only choosing to give mainstream Democrats a solitary comment to counter it? And then editorializing that comment in a manner that plays into Republican spin.

Essentially, Allen's column reported on how the Lamont victory was somehow going to be to the detriment of Democrats and the GOP will spare nothing in capitalizing on that. If one follows the distorted logic, left-wing extremists have allegedly hi-jacked the party. Additionally, the implication is that taking an anti-war position is somehow akin to being against national security.

Somebody needs to remind Republican talking heads, and reporters like Allen, that the majority of Americans support a pullout from Iraq. It is hardly a fringe, or extremist issue.

For one of the most comprehensive refutations of the Mike Allen article, you can read the Media Matters post on it here.

The good news is that we are now alert enough to not necessarily rely on Media Matters alone to speak out on this abuse of the public's trust. Before I had read the MM piece, I had seen at least a half-dozen other blogs that commented on the same thing. The Huffington Post alone had a batch of blogposts on the subject.

Now it is up to us to contact the editors at Time and voice our displeasure.

Interestingly, the Allen column supposedly allows for comments. When one goes to post, the following message appears: "Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the author has approved them."

Guess what? 2 days later and not a single comment has been posted.

To contact Time directly send e-mail to letters@time.com