Newsweek has helpfully put the "correct" answers in bold.

5. From what you know about the situation, do you think the United States is losing the fight against al-Qaeda or radical Islamic terrorism?

52 - Yes
37 - No
11 - Don’t know/Refused

Correct answers? TO A POLL? Oy.

I think that's the fig leaf they'll use. A: He didn't read the reports. B: Since he didn't read the reports, none of the violations had been verified.

What a scumbag.

I thought they'd pin their defense of Abu on the parsing of the definition of "verified."

sounds like Al-Maliki and the underside of a bus just had what diplomats call "a frank exchange of views."

The point isn't parsing the difference between "breathing space" and "security." I agree, they aren't that different. The point of emphasis is on what was the objective of providing security/breathing space.

The original rationale was that the breathing space was a means to provide for political reconciliation.

In the new formulation, the provision of security/breathing space is put forward is an end unto itself.

(These guys are really good at moving the goal posts.

He's like the drum major in the big furry hat with the whistle at the front of the hypocritical sh*tbag parade.

Not only can I not imagine Bush fielding such blunt accusations, I can't imagine anyone in a position to ask actually having the courage to ask.

Except maybe Helen Thomas

...but it's yet another example of a nuanced response that gets boiled down into a bullshit horse-race-media-pundit talking point. And Tim, you're carrying water on this one.

Security and personal liberty/human rights are trade-offs. We make these trade-offs all the time. They exist on a continuum. Human rights are just at the extreme of personal liberties, which we generally (until the last 7 years) regarded as a given.

I would have loved if Gov Richardson had said to Wolf, "look, Wolf, let me ask you a question: Is it okay with you that the government could waterboard your wife or daughter? Is there any level of security the government can provide that would justify that possibility?"

I listened to NPR's "analysis" of Bush's press conference today, and the pundit (don't remember who it was) said, with respect to FISA (paraphrasing):

"People seem to accept the idea that we have to...accept a certain loss of privacy to be protected from these people who want to attack us. Some people - a lot of people - have a problem with that, but I don't get the sense that it has risen to a significant enough level to be a big issue."

Time and others misrepresent the content of the law itself; willfully fail to correct their errors; and worst of all intentionally censor public opinion about the matter, creating the misimpression that no one cares. The result is that a broad section of the American public will not realize the depth and breadth of outrage their fellow citizens feel about illegal wiretapping. And that is outrageous.

But his response raises a point that your reply dodges: what reporting did you do?

In what way is that a dodge? The real dodge is the suggestion that it matters. What does that have to do with anything?

As other commenters have mentioned, this comes up in sports reporting ALL THE TIME: A sports reporter questions a sports figure; the sports figure, accustomed to deference, is surprised. Sports figure resorts to saying, "well, you wouldn't understand it because YOU NEVER LACED 'EM UP."

No wonder some of the better journalists have roots in sports. They've sniffed out this BS before.

Keep doin' whatcha do, Glenn.

I thought it wasn't okay for the President to receive a blowjob.

Setting aside for the moment the idea of recalling Reid, what is the likelihood of Dodd challenging Reid for Leadership? And how can we support him?

This administration continues to render parody obsolete.

You mean the clownish former talk show host on KSFO?

The Melanie Morgan who appears regularly on the pages of Media Matters for her outlandish (and factually inaccurate) attacks on people like Jon Soltz and George Soros?

The Melanie Morgan who has "podium-ed" multiple times on Keith Olbermann's WPITW segment?

You *could* have mentioned that in the article.

Say what you will about Code Pink, but Melanie Morgan is truly odious.

This is a good start.

I was an Edwards supporter when he was a candidate, but my heart's not in his being VP, or AG, for that matter.

Edwards isn't that great a fit for AG. Superficially, yes: he's a successful former practicing attorney.

But I suspect the DOJ is so riddled with partisans from the last 8 years that it will take a consummate intraorganizational battler, a former DOJ senior staffer who knows the ropes of the DOJ intimately, to detox the department.

I think Mr. Schaller is interpreting the 50-state strategy pretty myopically if he sees it as a failure.

The 50-state strategy does 2 things:

1, it forces the GOP to spend money in places they normally don't have to;

2, it mobilizes Democratic voters to register and vote in non-Dem states, which helps in the long-term by getting Dems elected down the ticket, not just at the top.

It's done both of those things, and the long-term trend is very good.

The 50-state strategy does NOT guarantee the top of the ticket success in the electoral college. Pretty sure the Obama folks know that.

Hmph. Lumberg.