I'm really appreciating the point you are making. I also am a massive supporter of how Glenn approaches the media. But I'm thinking maybe he pounced too quickly on the particular instance he is using here.

For instance: towards the end of his article he says that this propogandic device has the media claiming that only the left wants leave Iraq and that the center wants to win. Is that true? No doubt, you will hear that claimed. But is that the typical way it is framed? That is not what I notice. It's a bit more complicated.

I think Mara's statement can be seen to contrast with the Bush mentality whereupon "the American people simply want a president who will stick to his guns and not change course due to fluxuating information. I have no doubt that the majority of Americans are in favor of having a president who makes decisions using actual information and prefer him or her to favor the use of actual information over campaign promises.

Of course, Glenn's overall point is massively important and he researches it well. There is something, in this case, that I am not comfortable with in regards to how he props Mara (via her comments) as an example of self-absorption and clear cut deceit. However he does suggest she might not be aware that she is obviously lying. There is a rhetorical snag in some of Glenn's approach to arguing that I'm uncomfortable with, which has nothing to do with how grateful I am to read him day after day after day. Glenn feels comfortable stating that it is obvious that Mara told us that:

"that only "the left-wing base" favors unconditional withdrawal while "the American people" only want to leave Iraq when "facts on the ground" allow it"

The fact that I'm not stupid and that I agree with Glenn's more general point must mean something when you factor in that I disagree with his conviction that the above quote is an obvious summation of Mara's viewpoint.

Glenn, thankfully, gets very nitpicky with language. I think it's fine to get nitpicky with his; not to sink him or get lost in semantic mazes, but to notice if he also has some of the rhetorical tendencies that drive him nuts in those he is fighting against.

Look, I just want to say that I appreciate how you are going about this conversation. You clearly are not playing the subtle "religious" game that most of us are addicted to in this context.

There is simply much more ambiguity going on here than people want to admit. I guess it is uncomfortable, especially when the larger point is so utterly valid!

But I really like to see examples of how a person can disagree while not playing the "sin" and "blame" game. I happen to believe that the tacit irrational "religious" games are what produce the major roadblocks to real change.

I just read Glenn's update. He asserts that Liasson is either consciously lying or that she simply doesn't care whether she speaks the truth. Man! That is SO simple. And, I think, it doesn't come close to representing the reality of what might contribute to Liasson's statement.

I love Glenn's work. I also happen to think that whatever contributes to his tendency to frame his points in the above manner is not helpful. There is a power that gets zapped in that sort of thing. However, I think in the short term those types of statements do satisfy a certain "religious"-type sentiment we all tend to filter the world through.

Even here: there will those who read this and kind of see me as an example of stupidity or worse. Others will try to find my point and see if it has any validity.

I think the end of Glenn's update is an example of something unhelpful that we all could do well to understand better. I don't think it is simply a cosmetic concern that falls under the category of "manners". I really appreciate that Glenn continually states that he tries hard to avoid using terms like "liar" when it isn't founded.