I am fascinated by anything the GOP's chief spin doctor cares to reveal to us huddled masses about the science of persuasion; and anyone familiar with my letters to Salon will recall that my own feeble contribution to the art is to refer to the authors of our misfortune not as "W" or as "Bush 43" but always as "Bush-Cheney" -- because while many people want to protect Junior Bush as they would a small child, Dick "Cakewalk" Cheney strikes most of the world as Satan incarnate. Indeed, the corporate media is already in overdrive reporting that the new "Democrat" front-runner is Hillary Rodham Clinton, making a point of including her middle name as if she were a mass murderer or presidential assassin -- "Rodham" having become right-wing code for Feminazi.

Mr. Luntz greatly mistakes the role of bloggers, however, and of those of us who write to Salon in the feeble hope of having some effect on the national dialogue. Our role isn't to craft strategies or sell policies or win elections. Our role is to tell those who do such things (or tell those who tell those who do) what is right. And what is right -- after all the lies used to sell this disastrous war, after all the shameless war profiteering (as detailed in 'Iraq for Sale', etc.), after all the carnage and destruction that has taken place so that Bush-Cheney as a "war president" might repeal the Constitution and assume the powers of an absolute monarch -- what is right is nothing less than cutting off funding for this fiasco, immediately, effective January 1, 2008. And If Mr. Luntz cares about more than money or power, he will leave the dark side and begin using his considerable talents to find a palatable way to sell THAT to the poorly educated superstitious red state folk.

Right, Dick Cheney never actually said "cakewalk", just as Junior never actually said the non-existent threat posed by Iraq was "imminent"; and none of the Bush-Cheney crowd ever actually claimed Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. That's just what the American people heard, thanks to Frank Luntz or other talented people like him.

On the other hand, Cheney on Meet the Press (03/16/03) DID say that he believed the U.S./U,K. military -- "would, in fact, be greeted as liberators" -- which, I'm sure Mr. Luntz would agree, is a more artful way of saying the same thing. Just as he might agree that saying Dick "Cakewalk" Cheney is a tad more efficient than Dick "They'll Be Greeted as Liberators" Cheney. [I'm guessing he'd think Dick "Chickenhawk" Cheney is too harsh.]

It's a little late to blame President Clinton for Bush-Cheney's disastrous war, especially as George Tenet, after selling his soul, was awarded the Medal of Freedom by the very scum to whom he supposedly provided all that bad intelligence; but whatever. Obviously the Right Wing Hate Machine has already gone to Def Con 5, now that they have another Clinton to impeach. But this time around, Osama bin-Forgotten, while good people are dying for a lie every day in Iraq. Things are so grim, it's possible that even the red state dummies won't be distracted from reality this time around by titillating talk about oral sex.

After all the lies used to sell this war; after all the sickening war profiteering as detailed in 'Iraq for Sale', etc.; after 25,000 U.S. casualties and all the carnage and destruction whose true purpose is to allow this "war president" to bash the Dems, repeal the Constitution, and assume the powers of an absolute monarch (excuse me: "unitary executive"); cutting off all funding for this fiasco immediately, effective January 1, 2008, is the right thing to do.

The war was lost from the moment the U.S. government lied to the U.N. about imaginary weapons and non-existent threats; invaded Iraq against the express wishes and advice of all nations and most of the governments of the world; and discovered that even in the 21st century Judeo-Christian armies from the West would not, in fact, be "greeted as liberators" by the Muslims. The question has never been one of "winning" or "losing" in Iraq, but only how many more people must die so that Bush-Cheney can delay having to acknowledge their own idiocy and thus be spared political embarrassment and possible setbacks in the real war against democracy, the "Democrat" party, and the American people.

-- Great line on Scarborough the other night, Joan (and I think I quoted you correctly).

Elephantman has, once and for all, blown the cover off liberal media bias. Of course, we who have been paying attention in recent years already are familiar with the many times our history has been affected by their bias. As when the U.S. media arrogantly refused to go along with impeachment, in order to protect a Democrat president; and when they did not want to accept the 2000 election results, because they all personally liked Al Gore so damned much; and when they refused to simply accept the claims about Iraq's WMD and links to al-Qaeda, even though a war would have been great for ratings; and when they refused to go 24/7 in trumpeting the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush (or as they so smugly put it, "until there was at least a shred of evidence"). Alas, the list goes on and on. It makes me sick, the left-wing bias of these insufferable "reporters" and "journalists".

As the saying goes, I know the U.S. media must have a liberal bias, because I hear people complaining about it every single time I turn on the TV or radio, and every time I open up a newspaper or magazine, etc.