David Broder even violated the use of anonymity rules when he covered a seminar for a private non-profit. In his column yesterday he made this mind numbing admission:

The dimensions of the governing challenge this administration faces came into focus for me last week when I was invited to a daylong seminar organized by the National Academy of Public Administration, a private nonprofit group that works on projects designed to improve the functioning of the executive branch.

The other people at the table were experts in governing -- two former Cabinet members, several more from the sub-Cabinet and a passel of academics with long years of experience in administrations of both parties. I was allowed to sit in, with the understanding that I could write about the discussion but not quote anyone by name.

I was so irritated when I read this that I posted the following comment:

pmorlan1 wrote:

"I was allowed to sit in, with the understanding that I could write about the discussion but not quote anyone by name."

David Broder you are such a tool. If you were any kind of journalist you would have laughed at these people when they proposed such an arrangement. Anonymous sourcing just to give cover to private citizens who want to criticize the administration? Good grief. It's not like you had to do this in order to get important information out to your readers. This was just run of the mill arm chair quarterbacking from these people that should have been on the record or not at all. You are a disgrace to your profession.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/04/AR2009030403066.html

I'd like to add my congratulations to both Glenn and Amy Goodman for receiving the Stone award. It was well deserved. I only wish they would have also given one to Bill Moyers for his excellent work.

I checked out the link to the Stone library and one of the pieces that I read was a piece by his assistant. It got me wondering if Glenn has an assistant(s) to help him with his work? I'm always fascinated that Glenn can put together a column with so many cross references. It must take an enormous amount of time to not only write the column but search for all the relevant cross references and citations. So how about it Glenn - anyone helping you?

That's amazing that you do all the work yourself every day. My hat is definitely off to you! I know this is REALLY, REALLY selfish but I just hope you don't work yourself to death because we really enjoy your blog and can't imagine not coming here to read your pieces. During the Bush administration we were concerned that they would go after you because you were such a powerful voice against them. In other words, take care of yourself. LOL

I'd say that the USA Today story was unbelievable but sadly it's very believable that such a factually inaccurate piece would wind up in print. After watching so many in our media distort and outright lie about the recent USA/Gallup poll I'm not surprised in the least that this was printed.

With regard to what the Obama administration did I'm also not surprised because they have been protecting the enhanced power of the presidency grabbed by the Bush administration since they arrived in Washington. It's pathetic.

Here's another piece that will get your blood boiling. It is a piece by John Yoo that appeared in the WSJ.

Yes, We Did Plan for Mumbai-Style Attacks in the U.S.

Why the latest assault on Bush antiterror strategy could make us less safe.

By JOHN YOO

The link to the story is in my signature. This is my comment to his piece:

"Congress must have understood that its words included stopping domestic attacks, since the hijacked airliners of 9/11 took off and crashed on American soil." - John Yoo

As John Yoo knows, Congress specifically rejected the administration's request to amend the war resolution to include the words - "in the United States" and after "appropriate force" so how can he possibly say that Congress must have understood? He knows darn well that Congress specifically rejected this idea and only voted for limited war powers. But Yoo and the rest of the unitary executive fetishists grabbed that power for the president because they believed that Congress had no business telling the president anything about how to protect the nation.

John Yoo and others, whose delusional idea about presidential power, have done great damage to our country. And until this country officially shines the light of day on the anti-democratic theory of the unitary executive and banishes it forever we are still at risk as a nation.

So? I am sure Obama agrees. Look at what Obama has said since he has been in office. "America does not torture," "Civil liberties are important", etc. What do you want from the guy?

If I remember correctly Bush said the very same things. As my parents always told me - Actions speak louder than words.

I meant to thank you for posting all the sarcastic posts. I've really enjoyed them.