Am I blind or did he not include even one military action on this planet? Not one torture related story? Not one USA threat against a peaceful little country?

Nope, I'm sorry to say, you're not blind.

The Politico--let me state the obvious: just disgraceful. The worst of it is, I don't suppose they really know what's what (or perhaps the worst of it is, they do).

R. Ashen: I still recall very well Tom Brokaw hawking how simply great he thought Politico.com was during DEM's convention in Denver.

That simperer derided blogs as a terrible invention. Regarding his network's coverage of the VirginiaTech shootings, he "observed,": It was not what he [Cho Seung Hui], what people saw of him on the air that will drive them, it’s what they read in blog sites, and what they see in video games. It’s that kind of stuff that I think is cancerous. And I’m a free speech absolutist, but I think that at the same time, we have to have free speech in some kind of a context." http://tinyurl.com/947vzr

(my emphasis)

Someone referred earlier to Versailles and powder-wigged, brandy sipping diletanttes (a rather broad paraphrase) and that's certainly what we're left with.

So it's not surprising to have the witty, urbane and delicately-boned Richard Wolffe utter the inanity that "the press here does a fantastic job of adhering to journalistic standards and covering politics in general."

So, in short, Poltico=great; blogs=bad; actual coverage of important events (economic collapse, a society so militant I sometimes think the Romans would blush, environmental degradation on a scale that's nearly unfathomable, and that's just to name but three)=yeah, but that's not really news.

Spleen vented (for now).

if the 90% of the mindless left-wing kooks who participate on this website are any indication of where we are going, America is lost because you all believe what you read. how tragic. how sad. how typical of the left.

Why, exactly, is "America lost" because we "all believe what [we] read"? Specifics would be helpful.

Far be it from me to suggest (okay, I will) that Greenwald's commentary typically parses political coverage that many others are reading which--need I add?--many here reject for any number of reasons. Much of "journalism" fails on the basis of what's covered (and more importantly what isn't), how it's covered, who is sourced for the story, and how those sources are described (by name or not).

That Greenwald needs to do this is tragic. It is sad. And it is because of such boobery that it's needed.

I hope this is clear to you.

Numbers 1-12:

This isn't evidence. These're propagandistic talking points.

Go outside, take a breath of fresh air, and clear your mind of RNC/Fox nonsense.

The good news (the gospel!) is that I feel I've said enough about this.

I took bamage's retched "advice" and read some of your comments.

To wit:

Who Likes Obama? the headline was a complete misnomer. it should have read "media dupes like obama." Americans distrust him, mindless robots like him. 12/27/08

"Americans distrust him"? After he won the election? With transitional approval numbers somewhere in the neighborhood of 75% to 80%?

And, Rick Warren is not a homophobe. a homophobe would be someone who supports stoning to death all homosexuals as is repeatly stated in the TORAH. stoning should be inflicted on anyone who does not return to normal sexual behavior. read Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. 12/20/08

In truth, I find it painful to paste these things. Your definition of homophobe, for example, would probably be endorsed by the most extreme and fundamentalist mullahs in Iran or among the Taliban. Does this make you happy to be so associated? And when you capitalize Torah, do you do so out of respect for the Pentateuch or because you're soliciting support among orthodox Jews?

Friend, and I say this with the most elastic understanding of the word, get your soul right.

Gee, Part I was bad enough.

But, really, enough with the footnotes. My mind is swimming!

If so, let me fill in for him:

Thomas the Tank Engine good--Elmo bad.

I think that might be a right/left analog for him.

the nuts on the left who don't like any opposing points of view ... have to revert to 4-letter words and gutter language.

Who did that? (And in case someone did and I missed it, let me add "fuckface" since I'm sure someone [me] meant to say this).

wolf blitzer is an extreme left-winger.

Huh? What is our standard here? If we mean the planet Earth, I think Wolf is not in the least, being a corporate employee. Can you provide us with an example?

The many articles nationwide about the CA prop. 8 homosexual street terrorists have been extremely sympathetic to the gay community as though they are 47.5% of the public in CA instead of the real number-2.5%.

Again, huh? What does this mean? How is this in any way relevant? How do the human rights of others depend on some percentage? Would you make the same determination on the 2nd Amendment? On any amendment? Why should there be a plebescite on this issue of human rights? What would you say if 90% of the population wanted weapons' legislation control? Would you howl? (And I'd like my answer in human, rather than James Dobson/Fox/RNC language).

the way Rick Warren has been attacked over and over again on this website, really for being decent and caring has been disgraceful. you and your gay friends are way off base for the way you constantly distort other people's positions on virtually every issue.

How is "caring and decent" synonymous with likening homosexuality to incest and bestiality?

You've written a lot of words, there, bub (which is a word I like--'bub,' that is).