From what I understand, the move to bar Finkelstein is being debated vigorously. It has gotten attention there, it wasn't allowed to be done quietly and then brushed under the rug.

One poster on a blog I read was very concerned about "right of return".

At least it is getting the attention it deserves, unlike the similar incidents occuring here.

abuse to women in the Sudan...I ask you why?

the lynchings that occured in Mississippi...I ask you why?

the bombing of Nagasaki...I ask you why?

the inhumane way the Japanese treated their POW's in WWII...I ask you why?

Jeffrey Dahmer's crimes...I ask you why?

the murder of my friend Ray in the 80's by a freeway killer...I ask you why?

killings of wolves...I ask you why?

about every slight that offends Hillary's (or Obama's, or Paul's, etc.) campaign...I ask you why?

crop circles...I ask you why?

It's Glenn's blog he can talk about whatever the hell he wants to, so far he's managed to keep my interest.

Last comment for awhile...well, maybe on this thread, since Glenn has a new one up.

But be certain: he works for a side -- and it ain't the people's.

Good point. If Obama (or Clinton) were to get elected, my guess is Gibson and Co. will have nooo problem finding the strength to question any administration assertions.

This is how they'll regain their reputations as "tough" reporters.

Lou Dobbs? I know he used to be all over the board, but lately he spends all his time posting letters from Democrats saying they have dropped out of the party, for which he seems inordinately pleased.

I watched the Frontline episode last night about corrupt border guards (that was reported as a NY Times article first) and it was well done and pretty low key.

Lou Dobbs couldn't understand any criticism of ANY border guards and blasted the NY Times for printing it. I guess if you sleep with a border guard and then pay him thousands to let in SUV's packed with illegals, it's okay. Even though he himself makes the whole idea of policing the borders the "Most. Important. Issue." facing America.

He might have once believed his own spiel, now he's just an "independent" bomb thrower.

He lost whatever respect I had for him.

Wow, just finished watching Gregory and Allen on Hardball. They kept pushing that they could have had no way of knowing the stuff they were reporting was false or overblown. No possible way.

How come the European press could? The Asian press? The Latin American press could?

How come there were critics that had solid info that weren't listened to..or even given a chance to air their views?

How come if there was a "debate" between pundits on the cable shows regarding the validity of the war, frequently it would be between some retired military guy or RW think tanker on the right and representing the left would be a celebrity, (Jeanine Garafalo, Sean Penn, you name it) no matter how well informed. It was frequently made to look like the "serious professional" vs. "hollywood".

I'm disgusted.

BTW, Ari also was very "puzzled" by Scott's book. Tut, tut.

I bet we weren't the only ones.....

No, you certainly weren't, it made me think of my grandmother who I lived with when my Dad was in Vietnam. She used to store her TV in the closet when not in use.

It came out for 2 shows only, our weekly allowance. Lawrence Welk for her, and Disney for me.

Even at 6 years old, LW was kind of boring but I couldn't pass up the priviledge of getting to watch TV, so I would sit through it.

Now that the President and this war are grossly unpopular and these enablers' jobs are no longer reliant on staying silent - they speak up.

Except few of them are. Gibson and Gregory are completely in denial. They can't even comprehend that someone would dare criticize their coverage of the events leading up to the war.

They are so freaked out that they are resorting to saying that their only job was to be stenographers, which is degrading to anyone with self respect.

Now if you meant McClellan, I'm not that impressed, other than saying it took someone like him to get the media all self righteous in their own defense. So much so, that they are looking silly and some cracks are starting to show.

If these guys ever do get indicted, I firmly believe they will say: "We never hid a thing, it was all on the internet. It wasn't our fault the media did not report it. " And, to a large degree, that will be exactly true.

You have a point. If you were in a discussion about the Iraq war and made the mistake of mentioning PNAC, the other person's eyes would instantly glaze over and you might has well have mentioned the Trilateral Commission. You were instantly dismissed as a freaky conspiracy nut.

Yet Project for a New American Century was right out there, not even remotely a secret group. It had (has?) a website, it produced letters advocating their postions with signatures of very powerful people.

The information was out there in the open...it just wasn't mentioned by the talking heads, so it wasn't "mainstream". The media did do the country a disservice.