Christopher1988: Who cares what polls show about the nation confusing the threat of Hussein with 9-11?

They were more than "confused," they were completely misinformed. -- SusanMc

Nobody was misinformed. It was a legacy of the Democrat PR campaign surrounding the Iraq bombing by Clinton. How do I know this? What Glenn knows and conveniently ignores is that two days after 9/11 WaPo did a survey where almost 80% thought Saddam did it. Even the "Mighty Wurlitzer" isn't that good.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/data082303.htm

Even if Clinton were solely responsible for the public's lack of understanding, it wasn't his responsibilty to correct the record after 9-11.....

I didn't say it was.

As always "Clinton did it too" justifies nothing.-- Paul Dirks

Did what too exactly? I'm not blaming, I'm explaining that there was a presumption of guilt on Saddam's part by way of previous Democrat PR. Is that a problem for you for some reason?

By the way, can I presume we'll never hear "Bush did it too" from you in the future?

Now, just off the top of my head, what about Jane Smiley, Barbara Ehrenreich, and Katrina van den Heuvel... just to continue the "meme." Not all at once, but maybe one interview every so often, or perhaps a profile?-- Karen M

To include Cindy Sheehan. Did someone actually say somewhere this isn't a lefty blog?

Anyone who has knowledge that may pertain to the possibility of a crime having been committed may be "hauled in front of a grand jury." This is why grand jury proceedings are supposed to be secret and why it is illegal to lie to a grand jury while it is trying to determine whether there is evidence of a crime. -- Frankly, my dear, ...

My point remains. Fitzpatrick had already determined that talking about Plame wasn't a crime. The grand jury here was a perjury trap that worked on one person because he and Russert disagreed. It was nothing less than a political witchhunt. Between that, disallowing witnesses for Libby, and an outrageous sentence, it was a Nifong of classic proportions. Meanwhile, Berger walks. Some justice.

How do you make authoritarian leaders look weak enough, long enough, to change the debate to benefit leaders (ideally from both parties) who are consensus driven and sensible of laws? If you have any ideas, Glenn, or come across ideas, that would be an excellent addition to your ongoing discussion on this topic.--Anonymous

How DOES one make strong leaders look weak enough, to make your liberal leaders look strong? So far it looks like "who's your mommy?" will be the rallying cry. But then, it's only fitting. The most manly personality for the Dems, really IS a mommy.

The thing I find so puzzling about almost everything you post is that your arguments appear designed to convince yourself - coming nowhere near the mark of persuading anyone else to agree with you.

LOL. When discourse has been reduced to seriously criticizing two people doing a light interview about Cheney, there's nothing to persuade anyone about.

Is what you said the worst insult you could think of? Would you be ashamed if someone said "Who's your Mommy?" was your rallying cry?

Absolutely. In my day, being a "mommas boy" was not a good thing. It lead to loss of lunch money and black eyes.

Do you see how your comment only reinforces the theme here, that there is a great deal of damage being done to our country by boys desperately seeking daddies?

Actually, that could be a topic all of it's own. Being a Dad has been seriously devalued. Some 70% of black children for instance, are born bastards because there is no incentive for the males to stick around. Boys don't get any less aggressive in a one-parent household. Certainly not in a no-parent global household.

Why would we have to rally around a parent, anyway? That's the authoritarian gig we are complaining about. I don't give a crap who your daddy is or your mommy is. Who are you?-- certifiedprepwn3d

Like it or not, humans do not do well, leading people by committee. A leader is by definition, authoritarian. That leader is also the point person in dealing with other leaders, all of which are eager to take advantage wherever possible. And most of which are RWA's. Do you think offering them cookies is the way to go? Perhaps you like being taken advantage of? Perhaps you've forgotten how low we all felt when Carter took a dive during the hostage crisis, and then made the "malaise" speech? Is that the kind of thing you're looking for? Sounds like you folks want to become the world's bitch. That's not for me, and yes I'll make fun of that all day long.

London has been saved from carbombing.... London also has cameras on a lot of corners. Any qualms here about that kind of surveillance? Should NYC do the same?