His function is to waste netroots time.

Benjamin Wittes said, "I actually know something about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I am one of the very few journalists--to my knowledge, in fact, the only one--who ever physically set foot inside the super-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court."

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

I'm posting this late and probably 20 other people on this blog already made this same point but here it is:

This tool obviously went to the Mike O'Hanlon school of journalism, wherein one can claim that merely stepping into a location gives one special insight to events that are in some way related to whatever is happening in that location.

This is the same logic which O'Hanlon used recently. It's also the same logic that argues that Rudy Giuliani has any special insight into terrorism and foreign policy because his city was the location of a terrorist attack.

It's a crock.

Hiatt said, "Mr. ElBaradei made headlines by denouncing one secondary piece of evidence, about an alleged Iraqi attempt to obtain fissile material from Niger, as a forgery. But the allegation is not central to the case against Saddam Hussein, and it did not even form part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent presentation to the Security Council."

Gee, that's funny because it certainly was central to George Bush, the Priisdent of the United States' case about a week earlier.

The only reason it wasn't central to Powell's case was because even Powell has some limits on how full of shit he is willing to be in front of an international audience (although Powell's standards are still about as low as the "as-sane-as-Ahmadinejad" standard).

LOL. Its always the guys who doth protest too much who turn out to be the Larry Craigs and Ted Haggard's of the world. Let me put this in terms adolescents like Hemingweay can understand: he who smealt it dealt it.

I've seen guys that look exactly like Paul Humphrey mincing their way through the Castro, the Village, Dupont Circle etc. many times. He looks like a repressed little penis puffer to me. You know, I also have it on good authority that Hemingway's mother sucks the Devil's cock in Hell.

Just. A Joke.

Sheesh. What's the matter? No sense of humor?

Take THAT, warmongers!

"Bill O'Reillys of the world love to bash "the angry left." i just don't think we're angry enough as a progressive community. We obviously haven't reached that critical mass where our anger spreads contagiously through the population at large else there ought to be demonstrations."

There's nothing wrong with anger in the appropriate situation like this one. In fact, it woudl be wrong NOT to be angry.

Re the fact that anger hasn't reached critical mass etc: What I am about to say is heretical in 21st Century America, but maybe -- just maybe -- those dirty hippies back in the 60's were onto something. Maybe they had good reasons to form a counterculture. Maybe they thought they had to take drastic and dramatic actions for a reason.

He's a mindless automaton whose prime directive is to hijack otherwise worthwhile discussions.

Leave the child alone to wank off in private.

Seriously, there are very important matters to be discussed and worked through. Don't pollute this thread with response and counterresponse to that scumbag.

It's very simple:

Petraeus lied. Therefore he betrayed the nation. Note that betrayal is not the same thing as treason. Many people are pretending that Moveon accused Petraeus of treason. But they didn't.

The wingnuts may be all up in arms that Moveon had the gall to predict Petraeus' betrayal. But predict it they did, which leaves the Republicans no ground for complaint while giving the nation eminent grounds for complaint.

So my message to the people who are pretending to be outraged about the ad: SHUT THE FUCK UP. RIGHT NOW.

Its risky to call someone a liar or a betrayer. If you are wrong, you have stepped over an important line. But if you are right, its the accused who deserves censure, not the other way around. Moveon is just the messenger. Petraeus is the wrongdoer.

This is all completely obvious.

Ted Olson would be the most rancid possible choice Bush coud make, which makes it very likely. If the Democrats allow that subverter of democracy who wipes his ass with the Constitution to become AG, I will never vote Democratic again.

The Republicans depend on lies and innuendo because they can't win a fair fight on the merits.

It's as simple as that. Petraeus lied to the American people and allowed himself to be used as a propaganda tool. In so doing, he showed where his true loyalties lie -- with Bush and the Republican party, not the country.

If Moveon's truthful ad is a scandal, then how much more of a scandal does that make Ledeen's dishonest and cowardly attack on General Abizaid?

And where are the media whores wondering how this will hurt the Republicans? Oh, that's right: as far as the media whores are concerned, nothing ever hurts the Republicans -- at least not if the media whores have anything to do about it (which they unfortunately do).

I don't know for sure but Bush's fratty nickname for the White House reporter David Gregory is "Stretch". I bet it was him. Gregory is sometimes ok but he also is not averse to dancing with Karl Rove and otherwise kissing Bushco ass.

Retired Military Patriot said, "This condemn MoveOn sense of the senate amendment opens the door for Dem sponsored amendments on all past Repug Thugs reprehensible distortions starting with the Swift Boaters. The Dems should offer one amendment after another making clear how hypocrisy and changing stances to fit your ends does not serve the nation or the troops. They can use GG’s past filings as a research tool."

That is a great idea. Unfortunately the probability that the Democrats will do something is inversely proportional to how good of an idea it is to do that thing.