GG,

The attack on Pelosi was also used on Israel itself. Yes, Israel was also guilty of being too soft on Syria, and harming its own national interest (in this administration's opinion) by approaching Syria without Bush's permission. Text below is from the Jeruselem Post, October 8, 2006:

In a separate appeal, Americans for Peace Now demanded that the administration make clear that it does not oppose peace talks between Israel and Syria. "Unfortunately, many in Israel and the US believe that your administration is standing in the way of renewed Israel-Syria contacts. We urge you to clarify, publicly and expeditiously, that this is not the case," the letter, sent to Bush last month, reads.

This week, Americans for Peace Now put out a statement expressing anger at reports in the Israeli media suggesting that Bush pressured Israel to reject peace overtures from Syrian President Bashar Assad. The organization called such pressure by the president "outrages" and demanded he allow Israel to be the one who called Assad's bluff.

"It takes a lot of hutzpa to tell Israel not to even talk about peace with its neighbor," said Debra DeLee, APN president."

This story refers to US pressure that was applied specifically to interupt informal "peace-feeler" contacts between Israel and Syria late last year--instigated by Syria, of course.

I don't believe Ms. Miller ever mistook Libby for a whistle-blower. Based on the rumors (which are of course all-important), it's hard to know who was blowing who's whistle, in that pair.

And for the record, Mr. Smith, please state the cost of your most recent hair-cut.

Kudos to Savage, and a wonderful post by GG contrasting Savage with the hard-hitting journalism over at Politico. I, for one, appreciate knowing the price of any public figure's haircut, and I hope Politico writers will include this piece of information in all their future gossip. For that matter, I hope that they will include the price of their own haircuts as well, simply in the interests of full disclosure.

I believe Jeff Smith has a good point in stating that high quality journalism has always been rare. But I disagree that Woodward and Bernstien were simply parroting from 'other govt. sources'. Deep throat was a whistle-blower, not a government spokesman. And everything given by deep throat had to be independently confirmed.

Finally, I note that Sam Seder is now working on a new sunday radio show, of unknown length, for airing on Air America. While I miss his daily show a great deal, his new slot offers a potentially important venue for folks like Savage, Greenwald, and other political journalists who actually have something to say. Our sunday news shows leave so much to be desired--I believe Mr. Seder's sunday slot could be a real gold mine for those who are hungry for real discussion, real reporting, real analysis. By utilizing content and guests from non-traditional sources like the left-blogosphere, Seder could really craft a totally unique (and valuable) sunday show. The Best of the Web sort of thing.

If there is a strategy in Iraq, it may be "suppress the Shia". I agree with other commenters that the surge isn't a strategy but a tactic. Is the goal of the tactic to earn time for the Iraqi Congress, or is it to suppress one of Sadr's power bases (Bagdad). Sadr certainly seemed to see it as aimed at him, got the hell out of Dodge, apparently as an attempt to rope-a-dope the americans, or in other words wait them out. But the americans and Sunni have been hammering so hard on the Shia since that time that he now appears to be mobilizing again, and offering resistance.

Ironically, "supressing the Shia" was Saddam's strategy too (Saddam, I believe, killed Sadr's father), and before him the British. A tried and true and infamous mission. No wonder we don't vocalize the 'strategy'. But, as our troops inhabit Saddam's palaces and our prisoners are in his jails, maybe it all goes without saying.

Even without the surviving pack of neocons, without even Cheney--Even if it was just the President himself, the occupation of Iraq will likely continue throughout his term. There is ample evidence from Bush's own words, as well as others, that Bush believes His God placed him in the oval office because God knew that 9/11 was coming, and he would be God's instrument during these crucial times. He consults with his "higher father" and the higher father says 'go for it, George'. It's a minority of two.

Regarding strategy, I can think of only one coherent and effective strategy that has ever come out of this administration--and it has nothing to do with Iraq. This latest "War Czar" fiasco being a prime example of how bankrupt, how piecemeal, how pathetic their efforts have become in this regard. However, the politicization of government agencies (DOJ, GSA, et al., ad nauseam) and offices for the purposes of obtaining unfair and probably illegal advantages in elections appears to be a well-coordinated, effective attempt to seriously change government. Had there not been a change to democratic majority in Congress in '06, consider the effects of two more years of Rove's operations, unhindered, in preparing for '08.