Glenn writes:

Where? Where did the Tillman family have the opportunity to tell their story in such a public manner?

Why are the media covering these hearings so intensely if it's all old hat, stuff that has long ago been revealed?

Waxman's Committee has issued subpoenas to first-hand witnesses in order to find out who is responsible for these lies and how and why they were disseminated? Who else with the power to compel testimony has investigated any of this? Nobody.

Did Rumsfeld know about the Tillman deceit? Did Bush or Cheney? Do you want to find out?

Now I get it. When the media was pandering with the fabulist Jessica Lynch coverage that seemed to be pro-military, they were all idiots. Now, with the media pandering the newest Jessica Lynch story with an anti-military slant, they are once again the gold standard of what is right and proper.

I also now understand that what you and Henry Waxman and Cindy Sheehan wanted out of these hearings was "an opportunity for the Tillman family to tell their story in such a public manner." That is what I had thought all along.

Finally, I see that what it is all about for you in the end is, 'What did Rumsfeld know? What did Bush or Cheney know?' I can't help you with that one, although it is my understanding that therapy and medication might work for you as it has for many other obsessive/complusives.

Come on! If you saw the O'Reilly show last night, you'll know that Moyers was caught in such a bald-faced series of lies that even his ardent apologist, Marvin Kalb, was left speechless as to what to say about it.

PBS and NPR together have done everything possible to publicize Moyers, without so much as one challenging question. In the space of a week, Moyers has been given uncritical promotional time on Bob Edwards' Weekend program, Tavis Smiley's television program, Democracy Now!, and Terry Gross' Fresh Air. And how many others I don't even know.

I cannot even imagine what the Angry Left would do if public broadcasting gave as much time to a Rush Limbaugh, a John Stossel, or a Bernard Goldberg.

If you can somehow link to that segment of the O'Reilly show, I'd LOVE to have the Salonistas judge it for themselves, in context.

I am no great fan of ambush interviews. But that one was fairer, by an order of magnitude, than a lot of what Michael Moore and "60 Minutes" have engaged in, pursuing their own left-leaning stories.

And after O'Reilly aired it, comparing it to audio recordings of Moyers saying EXACTLY what he had denied saying, we didn't hear Marvin Kalb say, "That was a totally unfair tactic; Moyers was taken out of context." No, Kalb said something to the effect of, "I'm concerned, and confused about why Bill would say that." Kalb was left mostly speechless, as I have already suggested.

Let's review the Bill Moyers modus operandi. Do some mostly-scholarly PBS broadcasting. Soft lighting, earnest tones. Alawys speak in a soft, honest-sounding voice. Do your speeches and your fundraising exclusively among the friendly left-wing elements. Never go anywhere where you have to defend yourself. Demonize the other side, and never, ever respond to them directly. If one didn't know better, one might think that my description of Bill Moyers was a mirror image of how the Angry Left views Dick Cheney.

Rachel Corrie - A Real American Heroine

In the midst of all the fake heroes, it is good to know that there is a true American heroine who stood in defense of the dispossessed and brutalized children of Gaza and paid for her convictions with her life. Read her emails on:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,916299,00.html

-- aVulcan

I hate to bulldoze the notion that Rachel Corrie was a "Real American Heroine," but in fact she seemed to be someone who hated America so much that she burned the flag and equated her native country with the Third Reich; a most peculiar irony in light of her alliance with organizations who are pledged to the destruction of Israel and the Jews. But one good link deserves another...

http://arizona.indymedia.org/uploads/hateful_traitor_rachel_corrie.gifqk6p2s.gif

...as long as you are clear that you must also substitute in "Hamas", "Islamic Jihad", "The Muslim Brotherhood", "Al Qaeda", the "Taliban" and others of that ilk as "victims". Excuse me while I induce vomiting.

I will NOT accept the idea that CPB, PBS, or NPR has any sort of ideological balance.

David Brooks "appears" occasionally on NPR or on PBS, always balanced by an opposing viewpoint.

Ditto Rich Lowry.

Ken Tomlinson was railroaded out of the CPB after trying to simply raise the issue of balance on PBS. The Wall Street Journal editorial board had a show on PBS, and it is now off to Fox. William F. Buckley had a show, once upon a time, that was hardly an op-ed show, but rather an interview program. Remember that Mark Green and Michael Kinsley got their television starts on Firing Line.

There is no right-wing equivlent of Bill Moyers on PBS. There is no right-wing equivalent of Frontline on PBS. There is no right-wing equivalent of NOW on PBS. And on NPR, there is no right-wing equivalent of Tavis Smiley, Democracy Now, News and Notes or half a dozen other programs.

No, I never, ever tire of the argument about public broadcasting's left-wing bias, because it is so rich with examples, and the hard evidence is so clear. And in radio particularly, I think NPR's reach is quite broad, particularly in swing states. I personally view the fight over the soul of NPR to be an important one, and one in which conservatives ought to be much more active. It's our network too, although you'd never know it.

And did somebody say David Brooks was a 'neocon'? Now I know the term has lost all meaning...