Can someone tell me if the documentary had anything to say about the de-emphasizing of the anti-war protests? Although this is arguably not one of the most significant factors in their selling of the war, it is one of the hardest to prove and also hardest to explain away. I remember the cropped photos of the Mall and of other protest sites which made it seem that far fewer people were there then actually were. What reporting they tended to do made it sound like it was just a bunch of crazies anyway.

There were a lot of people who were NOT duped.

What do you think of George McGovern's statement that Bush and Cheney will ultimately be forced to resign?

Given that Gonzales is still there in spite of everything, and looks like he will hang fast as long as Bush wants.

Given that Goodling might or might not be forced to show up, but certainly won't remember anything.

Given that Rice feels not inclined to tell anything in particular to Congress.

Given that Rove is still there in full force, in spite of Bush's promise to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak.

The list goes on... Short of a youtube release of a videotape of Bush giving head to Gannon I don't think Bush's supporters will desert him.

To me that would be more likely than impeachment, which the Democrats (arguably rightly) don't want to do, but I'm certainly no expert. So McGovern's prediction, does it have any legs?

Don't worry -- everyone will suddenly remember their journalistic mandate to question government authority after 2008 when we swear a Democrat into office.

Even if habeus corpus is restored, wouldn't Bush just issue a signing statement that declared he did not have to comply with it for overriding "national security" issues? They are doing that with wiretaps and who knows what else already.

They really need to conduct some serious offense here, not just the weak minded sweeping up after the elephant.

Of course PBS will be counted as "partisan liberal" for putting on such a production.

I know it is fun to poke at those militaristic 23-29% that will vote for Rudolph the authoritarian just because it seems like he is the toughest guy around.

These people are still dangerous, because there are still a LOT of remaining hard-R voters that will vote R only because they know in their core-of-cores that D means "tax and spend liberal." Facts don't enter into it they know that in their gut because it is not only what they have always been told, but it is what they have always said themselves.

It is no time to become complacent. That said, progressives have made a lot of progress.

I really don't see a lot of difference between the writings of today's mainstream pundits (like Malkin, Hannity, etc.) and what was typically written and said about black people prior to 1960 or so.

"Muslim" has become the new "n****r".

It works like this.

Unclaimed Territory is a blog.

Pajamas Media is a blog.

Altercation is a blog.

LGF is a blog.

ThinkProgress is a blog.

(etc)

You have a clear example here where LGF and Pajamas Media clearly published misinformation, either wilfully or by mistake. This is because they are blogs, without the resources of the MSM.

You therefore cannot trust anything a blog publishes. None of them. So anything that Unclaimed Territory publishes can be ignored.

Since the facts are generally on the side of the progressive and the left, this blanket nullification is vastly to the advantage of the right wing.

"Silence is complicity, you know," notes Glenn Reynolds.

Has someone asked Instapundit if that means he is complicit in all the abuses committed by our own government but he chooses not to write about because he likes the guys who are enabling it?

I think this blog has pointed this out before, and it needs to be pointed out again. This has nothing to do with the ethics of torture or global warming or clean air or disaster relief or Social Security. It has to do with supporting the big-daddy leader who must not be questioned in deed or intent. If GWB came out tomorrow against torture and for the Geneva conventions, that's what the right wing blogosphere would accept and they would forget anything they ever wrote to the contrary overnight.

There is no reasoning with them -- you just have to defeat them and muzzle them and let them stew in their own made-up world. Oh, and keep explosives and firearms away from them.

The thing that the Democrats rolled over for was not George W. Bush, but the threat of bad press over the Memorial Day weekend.

Now, of course, they get extended bad press all the time and look like wimps.

What they should have done is come up with a tougher bill and sent that in on Friday.

As I was reading this it struck me again just how hard it would be to have this information if it weren't for hardworking blog-writers like Glenn Greenwald. Would you ever read this fact summary at the WaPo, NYT, or WSJ? Or even, for that matter, Vanity Fair or Harpers?

Somerby is right. MSM journalists will NEVER call their own kind to account. But now I can print out this page and pin it up for all those smug types who insist they have the right of it not only now, but then.

Suppose you are stuck in an arranged marriage to someone disgusting?

Islam offers no answers. To be fair, the competing religions founded on Abraham don't either. I'm tired of the "religious" getting to decide what is moral and what is not. Everyone go read Dawkin's and Hitchen's books.