The possibility that the WH was simultaneously denying the presence of bentonite in the anthrax, while at the same time promoting that notion, is too rich to pass up.

We would only know if ABC revealed their sources. But the above could explain why they are guarding them so jealously.

At first I was only curious to know who the sources were, because I always want to know them. But now, the identity of the sources is critical to the question of whether an even more outrageous sham was being perpetrated -- one which would certainly cause some heads to roll at ABC.

Were any of the four sources affiliated with the White House?

If they are unwilling to answer that question, then Mark McGuire must be working for their PR department.

In line with the recent postings on the American media, it is amazing how the dictatorship advocates are referred to as "experts," "scholars," and "fellows," by that credulous group of sycophants. At the same time, people who have devoted their entire careers to understanding the Muslim world (e.g., Juan Cole) may occasionally get an interview on NPR or something. That, in my view has been a big factor in the astonishing influence of people like Kristol. I guess all Bush needs now is a Praetorian guard.

I used to lurk there, and post once in a while, until the regular posters began to openly advocate gencide of all Muslims. When pressed, one of the moderators said that this was "iffy." No more hits from me.

CNote's experience is something that occurs every few minutes there. It truly seems that the goal of the site is to provide a little club from which they can haughtily exclude people, the way adolescents do.

And it's too bad. There are actually some pretty bright people there. They are just so blinded by this need to regulate the language of their posters. I have to wonder whether it's a kind of projection of the loss of control over Iraq.

If a hate site is one where people generally post derisive comments about the other guys' political leaders, then practically every political blog would be a hate site. When I think of a "hate site," what comes to mind for me are those neo-nazi sites or the like.

Do the posters at Redstate ever say favorable things about John Kerry or Howard Dean, for example? If not, then by the defintion you imply, Redstate, LGF, etc would certainly be a hate sites as well.

In regard to this, one person I remember doing this was someone named mbecker, who was a regular poster. And I think that the commentator who said that this was iffy was Leon.

It's also astonishing that in spite of this, our representatives in Congress continue to post regularly there.

I don't think I've ever responded to one of shooter's comments until this one. But in this case, I think that a discussion of what constitutes hate in public discourse is a reasonably valuable way to spend my time in between daiper changes (my son's, that is). But if you don't, post something else that will distract us.

Redstate mad lib:

General Sheehan, just like Gens. Zinni, Odom, etc are just disgruntled rejects who got passed over for a _____(noun). Sheehan even voted for a Democrat in _____(year). We're better off without them. According to Drudge, Sheehan was forced to _____ (verb) because he was caught Internet chatting with a fourteen year old _____ (noun).

There are people who want to be lied to; we determine what would be a digestible lie -- which would return them to their previous sense of calm. E.g., once our kids realize that the Santa at one mall looks different from the one at the other mall, we just say that they are "Santa's helpers." Everything is cool again for everyone. The child gets to continue enjoying the fantasy; we don't have to deal with the tears. And as soon one lie has run its course another one is available.

It is difficult at this point to understand why this remaining group of die hards continues to deny reality on Iraq. My only guess is that they are more concerned about their reputations than with the prospects of the party to which they purport allegiance. This includes people such as Krauthammer and Malkin, who have spent so many years ridicluing anyone hesitant to go to war. They have nothing to gain by recanting; rather, they have been rewarded by the Joe Kleins whose reluctant support looks prescient in contrast.

Another reason why the haircut is so important is that the Rovian tradition dictates that you must distort your opponents strengths into weaknesses. They may perceive that Edwards' good looks will be helpful to him, so it essential now to contaminate that forte with some slur that will forever be associated with it -- just as Purple Hearts were transformed into purple band-aids at the Republican Convention. They want to nip any potential Kennedy vs Nixon TV debate problem in the bud.

As I remember from my good old college days, the cheerleaders would often do some astonishing routines, in addition to the cheers themselves. They would form enormous standing pyramids, throw each other high into the air, all the while doing flips, catching each other after the flips -- truly impressive stuff. Unlike the Victory Caucus, or whatever they are calling themselves now, the real cheerleaders actually put themselves at serious physical risk.