Among the most pernicious and enduring lies is that the "real" and "only" leaker was Armitrage, and that Fitzgerald relentlessly pursued the others even after he knew that Armitrage had leaked to Novak.

This lie appears in Cohen's column and every Libby defense (e.g., the loathsome John Podhoretz on the McL. Group Sunday), but I have not seen a lot of clear, simple rebuttals of it. I believe the rebuttal is that Armitrage did not reveal that Plame was covert, and that others (Rove, Cheney) leaked to other journalists who didn't publish the information. If someone can add more, I'd appreciate it.

But there must be a pushback against this lie, as well as the others.

The Times implicates itself by publishing blatant government propaganda. There are not two "sides" to this issue. There are no facts in dispute as to whether the stipulation was coerced. And yet they publish a piece blandly asserting that it was not.

Orewellian doesn't begin to describe this.

I agree that this article is guilty of blatantly disseminating propaganda uncritically to whip up a frenzy for war with Iran. (NPR did the same thing this morning, BTW.)

But I'm not sure why Glenn quoted this sentence as bolstering the accusations:

"In Washington, Bush Administration officials have generally held open the possibility that the Quds Force activities might have been carried out without the knowledge of Iran's senior leaders").

Isn't this an insertion of at least some skepticism?

(Not that it exonerates the rest of the article at all.)

Berkowitz blatantly lies when he says that the t was Al Gore who shifted the election controversy to the courts by filing a lawsuit challenging decisions made by local Florida county election supervisors.. While certain voters in Palm Beach County filed a lawsuit on November 8, Bush filed a lawsuit on November 11, 2000 in federal court.

Forgive me if someone has already raised this, but I disagree that Noonan is being "stupid" by talking about Edwards' hair. It is quite calculated, so as to continue the assault on Edwards that will minimize consideration of his stand on issues. As with Gore and Kerry, the GOP's tried and true strategy (abetted by the Dowds of the world) is to repeat these slanders in order to make the "faggot" image indelible.

Of course, it is objectively "stupid," but within the slash and destroy tactics of the right, it is, sadly, "smart."

for Brian Montopoli and/or his editors. Glenn has been poring through Hagee's records, not pouring through them.

As for substance -- This story is great. Talk about hoist on your own petard. It's the culmination of 30 years of Republicans sucking up to these maniacs, and the media papering over their extremism and lunacy -- the ultimate chicken coming home to roost.

McCain already faces an uphill battle to get the support of the religious right, and to hold the support of the Catholics that Bush got in 2004. He is caught in a class whipsaw -- further alienate the fundies who don't trust you so much, or rile up the Catholics.

And to think it evolved from Timmeh's hectoring of Obama about Farrakhan

Kristin Britweiser and the other "Jersey Girls" should be interested in this, and have been good at getting things publicized.

(Sorry if someone else has brought this up -- I haven't had time to scroll through all the comments.)

He was very nice, very sympathetic. He said that Obama was opposed to the bill. I said he should be leading the fight, etc., not supported the likes of Barrow. He said they were getting flooded with calls, most through this site, and the message was getting through. I said I realize that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but that in this case, it is not even politically practical to stay out of the lead on this issue.

Let's see.

Glenn -- I think you should respond to the Morton Halperin op-ed today defending the FISA bill. He's someone I respect, and as he notes, was a victim of wiretapping. I know you have rebutted some or the points he was making, but I think it's worth specifically addressing his op-ed. (The one glaring omission in his op-ed is telecom immunity.)

(I'd hate to believe that Morton has been influenced by his son, Mark Halperin on this issue.)

What nominees will be able to overcome a filibuster (assuming Obama does not now turn the tables and invoke the "nuclear option?") Likely there will be a new (similar) "gang of 14" -- much loved by the Broders of the world -- who will reach some "compromise" on which Judges are acceptable to Orrin Hatch et al.

I would say the situation is even worse than when Clinton could appoint Ginsberg and Breyer because Orrin deemed them "acceptable." Compared to the rancor of the last 16 years, that was the "Era of Good Feelings."

I can even see Orrin filibustering even the most conservative Dem nominee and living with a 4-4 deadlock or even a 4-3 right wing majority for the entire first Obama administration.

In any case, I don't see Larry Tribe or even Hillary Clinton donning the robes anytime soon. Cass Sunstein may be a wuss on civil liberties, but I'll bet even he will be unacceptable to the Hatchites.

Patrick999 -- since when have the Republicans cared about political fallout? The Clinton impeachment?