As the author states: Congress, the supposed locus of the power to "declare war," is belatedly registering its disapproval of Bush's inept conduct of that war.

Not only does he violate Dan Froomkin's rules (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/10/iran/index.html), he forgets his profession's Code of Ethics. Here are a few relevant statements (Full text here: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp?):

Seek Truth and Report It Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.

— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.

— Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.

Act Independently Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

— Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.

Be Accountable Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

— Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.

— Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.

— Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

(Congratulations, Glenn!)

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26939

Doctors and lawyers face all kinds of consequences for their actions - lawsuits, loss of license, professional censures. Journalists face no similar consequences for "malpractice." They're basically on the honor system. Whatever their motives for shoddy and reckless reporting, there isn't a lot of incentive for dishonest, unethical, and greedy journalists to change.

This is a good explanation of why this kind of reform won't (and probably can't) happen:

From the Society of Professional Journalists

http://www.spj.org/ethicsfaq.asp?

The Society's leadership has debated the question of enforcement off and on for decades. The majority has felt that establishing a quasi-judicial system, such as those found in some other professions, would inevitably lead to actions by governments, courts or their proxies that would restrict the rights to free speech and free press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/young-lincoln/

MoveOn

Percent of Internet users who visited the site (1 week period): 0.0065%

Traffic Rank (yesterday): 26,999

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=moveon.org

Victory Caucus

Percent of Internet users who visited the site yesterday: 0.00085%

Traffic Rank (yesterday): N/A

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=victorycaucus.com

For MoveOn, that should be:

Percent of Internet users who visited the site ( yesterday)

Baby steps and just a little hope?

Dean Barnett: Idiotic. Disgusting. Stupid. Moronic.

Kathryn Jean Lopez: The Edwards remark was obviously ridiculous and shouldn't have been said. It's unnecessary, damaging stuff.

Right Wing News: That makes her extremely selfish, especially since this is the second year in a row that she has said something particularly obnoxious and controversial at CPAC. What's on tap for next year? Will she drop the N-bomb? Will she use the C-word to describe Hillary Clinton? Whatever her plans are, after being burned twice in a row, CPAC shouldn't invite her back next year.

Roger L. Simon: Just like the kid in the back of the classroom climbing over her seat and frantically waving her hand - "Call on me! Call on me!" - she just couldn't stand not to be the center of attention.

Of course, Ann makes a pile of money off that pathology...

Right Wing Nut House: Since every single conservative blogger I have seen this morning has roundly condemned her as well as most going so far as to believe she should never be invited to a respectable political gathering again...

Ace of Spades: Every time she comes here she seems to have an obligatory attention-getting ill-advised slur at the ready.

The American Mind (linked by Glenn Reynolds): Ann Coulter almost made it through her CPAC speech without looking like a complete buffoon.

The Political Pit Bull: Unfortunately, Yes, She Did

Bryan @ Hot Air: I’m no fan of John Edwards, but that’s just a stupid joke. It’s over the line. The laughter it generated across the room was more than a little annoying.

AJ Strata: I was at CPAC last year when Coulter bombed with her stupid and irresponsible comment about ‘ragheads’. ... From that day on Coulter was damaged goods and had moved into the camp of Conservatives no one wants to relate to (think David Duke). She has apparently cemented her position this year by going into another mean spirited, stupid tirade...

Nancy Pelosi is called a San Francisco liberal every day - I don't see that connection. "Faggot" does not equal "San Francisco Liberal," imo.

"But then again, these folks aren't running for president..." No, they're not, but they're some of the people who will drag a statement out of Romney. His spokesman has reportedly already denounced Coulter's remark.

I see these denunciations as a good thing. Regardless of their motives, the fact that there are a few of the movement who aren't willing to adore Coulter. It means she could, possibly and slowly, be on the way out.

That "San Francisco Liberal" is associated with supporting gay rights (among other things). But I think if Coulter had used that phrase and not "faggot," this uproar (left or right) would not have happened.

The problem is that Coulter is making the movement look bad by saying "faggot" - not necessarily that she's demonizing gays.

I understand that motives may not be pure...but I so want her to just go away. But it won't be we who get rid of her.

He reintroduced his bill on Jan. 4: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.139:

It was referred to the Judiciary Committee.