"Past insecurity and sectarian violence kept many medical professionals away," Faulkner said. "We are optimistic that the improved security and stability will permit the return of these professionals and essential services."

Oh yeah, it's all make believe.

At the rate of $250,000,000.00 and one American life per day, we should hope we could point to something tangible in Iraq we have achieved at the cost of all that treasure and blood.

John McCain tried to differentiate himself from the Republican pack by advocating an increase in Iraq troop occupation levels, never dreaming that Bush would actually do it.

Now that Bush has "surged," McCain has to not only assume ownership of the policy, but attempt to take credit for it.

It's not that the "surge" has accomplished anything useful -- our Iraq policy is much too incoherent for that. Instead, the illusion of success is based on co-opting and arming the Sunni insurgents that were attacking US troops last year, and setting the stage for civil war against the Shiite government we installed.

Congress passed laws that would compel companies to comply with legitimate national security needs. Of course, since laws were passed publicly, citizens would be aware of what their government was doing, and if necessary, challenge the laws' constitutionality in the courts.

Now that America is a dictatorship governed by secret presidential decrees, Congress and the courts are no longer even necessary.

I wonder if anyone will mention the demise of our constitional republic on the next Fourth of July, when we pay lip service to the Founding Fathers, martyred patriots and the now-obsolete notion of the "American Way."

Certainly this would put us more in the mainstream of the global community. Shame on you for promoting American exceptionalism. Shame.

American exceptionalism? Land of the free and home of the brave? The old tired, weary, teeming masses yearning to be free? The shining city on a hill?

That's so pre-9/11.

Now we're just another emerging police state with a rapidly deteriorating third-world economy.

I think the real 'fault line' here is between the mainstream of security-minded Americans and...

The far left, whose default position is to blame American first, and who regard the war on terror as a purely domestic law enforcement issue.

Mainstream America is the 70% or so that understands that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, and that our occupation is counter-productive to the so-called "war on terror."

For the other 30%, criticism of the government is to "blame America first" but only when the mis- and malfeasance is by the Republicans.

I suspect you'll find out who's in the mainstream this November.

Are there 41 senators smart enough to understand the significance of what they are voting on, and patriotic enough to torpedo this obvious assault on our liberty?

Or is our Democrat-controlled Senate a whore-house?

The WSJ and others in the Bush stiff-arm-salute crowd are able to get a lot of traction with their ludicrous amnesty arguments because congressional Dems refuse to mount any type of organized political opposition.

Reid and Rockefeller, as GG has so ably argued, are even complicit in this disgusting sell-out to anti-democratic corporate interests. If Senate Dems aren't fighting, we can't expect the M$M to even report on the controversy -- much less provide "balanced" coverage.

When only left-wing bloggers are fighting for the "American Way," it's going to be a long hard slog. Our debauched congressional Dems need to learn they will pay a political price for their complacency.

As always, you refused to answer my question regarding how you would react if it was your daughter and you were accused of pimping her. Oh yeah, it's OK if it's the Clintons. Heh.

I can't answer that because I would never put my daughter in the position of soliciting votes. If Billary were really concerned about their daughter, they wouldn't have put her in the public spotlight.

So anything goes if it's politics (and only if it's the Clintons). That's lame -- even for you.

If you (God forbid) were to ever run for office, your children would never, ever support your campaign in any way?

Is there a Lee J. Cobb / "12 Angry Men" issue here?

Objecting is one thing, demanding someone be fired and threatening the network is something else. But more importantly, it was a comment about the parents not Chelsea. In fact, Shuster had nothing but good things to say about her before and after the comment.

This is nothing more than playing the victim yet again, while simultaneously exacting heavy handed retribution. Considering that MSNBC had no problem with Olberman using the exact language referring to Bush, this is just pitiful. MSNBC stands for Making Sure Nobody Bashes Clinton.

As always, you refused to answer my question regarding how you would react if it was your daughter and you were accused of pimping her.

Oh yeah, it's OK if it's the Clintons. Heh.

Not that it's on-topic, but do you happen to have any daughters?

If so, can we assume you would not object if someone publicly suggested on national TV that you were "pimping" your daughter?

If the Wallace interview was anything like Bush's "press conferences," the question was submitted, approved and the response scripted in advance.

The framing and response simultaneously allowed: a) Bush's critics to be portrayed as overly concerned with "the rights of those who want to kill us," and b) let Bush provide a rational-sounding, "above-the-fray" presidential response.

Does anyone really think that's the way Bush and his nomenklatura describe their critics behind closed doors?

It was a two-fer. And today's corporate media -- especially Fox -- is only too happy to whore themselves for a little face time.