...if you believe in neocon ideology. There is only one political event in the world, it is the defining event for this century, and it is the clash of civilizations centered in the Middle East. There is only one kind of senseless killing of civilians that feeds this event, and it is Muslim Arabs trained to wear suicide vests by their hate filled parents before they could even talk.

Since Cho was neither a Muslim Arab (in the neocon general sense, which includes North Koreans and Iranians, but not South Koreans), nor was he involved in the clash of civilizations in the Middle East, his rampage had no political meaning.

Therefore anyone who says it does is playing politics.

Simple. What's there to not understand?

I find it both disturbing and oddly reminiscent of what the Taliban do to women who go to school. Do people who want to impose their religion on others all share the same collective subconscious or something?

It's to stop embarrassing the Bush administration. That requires that he get this story out of the headlines without getting indicted. It's a dirty job but...

He's really doing quite well, with some help. The day after his testimony was chosen by his boss to be a national day of mourning, thereby removing his testimony from the headlines of at least the Washington Post and the LA Times. His testimony successfully produced enough fireworks to keep the majority of the country from noticing the details of the Supreme Court stealth bomb. The networks cooperated by putting him on CSPAN-3, which is unavailable to anyone who has DirecTV (guess who owns it). Everyone is talking about impeaching him, and the fact that the scheme the prosecutors didn't cooperate with was rigging elections is being lost. And he kept people criticizing his memory instead of his meeting(s) with Karl Rove.

No wonder the President thinks he is doing a good job.

Watch for Monica Goodling to have a dissociative fugue within minutes of being immunized, she'll be found wandering and homeless in Lodi, California.

A former victim of imprisonment and torture who twice co-authors bills to limit habeas corpus? Not sane, never was, don't waste your time.

Don Imus got shafted for calling women whores. How sad. Maybe we should call Don Imus, and Rob and Anon raping molesters. Yeah, so it isn't true, who cares? Free speech and you know what I meant and all that. Could even do it on the air and repeat it 10,000 times in the MSM, if we just change the spelling like they changed whores to hos.

How about reighpin molestas? A little shk-a boom and some rhyming lyrics, we can call it music and it'll be okay to call you that.

Before you decide that its unfair to come down on Imus, decide whether you want someone to call your mother what he called the Rutgers students. If not, he doesn't need to be on the air.

She didn't like Clinton, recently totally trashed Hillary, she absolutely detested Judy Dean, and used it to go after Howard in a way that made me wince. Now she doesn't like Barack and Michelle.

I'm really glad I'm not in politics. My wife is smart enough to frighten some people, and she doesn't kowtow to or flatter anyone, least of all me.

Maureen would absolutely hate her. But why?

...is the dialog between Moyers and Pincus at 1:08 that beginning back in the Reagan era the press gave up on reporting the facts, and turned to covering "both sides" of an issue as a substitute, essentially substituting "objectivity" or lack of "bias" for factuality and reporting the truth. Back 10 minutes from that Walter Isaakson and Dan Rather tell Moyers that this is due to "journalism on the cheap" -- pundits and "experts" are cheaper than fact finding and reporters on the ground.

It is interesting that the change Pincus is documenting occurred nearly simultaneously with Reagan FCC Chair Mark Fowler's facilitation of for-profit news divisions, by eliminating the fairness doctrine, eliminating the limit to minutes of advertising per hour, and eliminating the 5-year review broadcasters used to have to solicit from their viewers.

It isn't that the media is biased, it is that they have very obvious strings and hot buttons on the corporate end that can be pulled and pushed to get the story you want out the other end.

That has resulted in too many of the stories in the mainstream media being ones that came out the other end.

Elephantman should have disclosed that the talking points he is spouting about Bill Moyer's affiliations come from a preemptive strike by Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin that aired one day before Moyer's show.

And Elephantman forgot to disclose that Bill O'Reilly has issued a retraction for most of the allegations.

You need to start disclosing your sources and facts, Elephantman.

They did mention the protests. What I was surprised they didn't mention was Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baradei. But I guess they covered them indirectly when the guys from Knight-Ridder said that all the information about the inspections had been available online.