Glenn,

Don't forget the NBC movie "Saving Jessica Lynch." It played to 14.9 million. It didn't win the night because it faced stiff competition with "The Elizabeth Smart Story." Disgusting.

I believe the right took a serious turn right into a bridge abutment at the time of the Libby verdict. to see Kate O’Beirne strain to discredit the process and verdict told us everything we need to know about the right.

My question is why does the press let them get away with it? Why do they not ask these people simple questions about their disgusting hypocrisy?

Maybe my answer lies with David Gregory gushing on the Chris Mathews Show about how he was able to dine with the Queen and get a good look at her Tiara. I don’t know what was more nauseating, Gregory telling the story, or the fact that he thought that the audience would be impressed and not sickened by hearing it.

Klein's problem is that "being serious" is considered reaching out and seeking accomadation with the so-called “centrist republicans.” As David Brooks calls them, “those thirty senators who are just looking for an excuse to break with the President.” Anything that deters from that tack is considered too fringe or radical.

Here is the problem. Those “thirty senators” are held captive by the far-right of their party. That radical group drives the agenda for the country (hundreds of millions in Clinton investigations, his impeachment, the stem cell “compromise,” the enabling of a pre-emptive war, the trashing of the Geneva Conventions, the support of an end to checks and balances, support for an Attorney General who consistently is untruthful under oath, the steady erosion of our civil rights, the policies that blindly support Israel (while, ironically, making Israel much more unsafe), the steady drum-beat for war in Iraq, etc. etc.

If those “thirty senators” wanted to break with their partisan ideologues, they have had ample opportunity to do so on a million different occasions. They don’t, thus the litany of disasters mentioned above.

So my definition of the Beltway’s “serious journalism” is people who try to find accommodation with a radical fringe that have never - and will never - accept accommodation. Who honestly expects the President to compromise? My definition of “serious” beltway journalism is exactly the same as my definition for insanity.

Joe Klein - in response to Greenwald - says that “being a "serious person" means the following: you study the facts on the ground, you study the history, you take into account opinions on all sides--not just your side--and then you come to a conclusion.” Err, wouldn't they have to see that the actual results of this “serious” reporting don’t follow logical thought. Facts + History need to trump “taking account opinions on all sides.” Facts and History show us what the last seven years have done to our country, its standing in the world, and the disaster it has unleashed in the Middle East.

Glenn,

I respect your take on CW in the Foreign Affaris World. I would love to read a response to Chritopher Hitchins's article in Slate today http://www.slate.com/id/2172152/

I first heard about the Iranian War from Keith Olbermann during his analysis of the Surge speech this winter. You were the next one to raise my concern level. Now this on Morning Joe on MSNBC:

http://rawstory.com//news/2007/Scarborough_Americans_will_support_attack_on_0827.html

I love Ana Marie Cox, but two things about this really alarmed me. First was the fait accompli tone of the Buchanan/Scarborough riff.

The second was Ms. Cox's response. While I appreciated her interjection that there is no way that their would be overwhelming popular support for this move, I was concerned that she totally conceded the point that "it is obvious that Iranians have been killing US troops."

This kind of concession reminds me of the "everyone knows Iraq has WMD" cave-in back in 2002. Um, excuse me, it was never proven to me that Iraq ever had them. And, uh, I have yet to shown that Iran is killing US troops. As a matter of fact, I have heard that far more Saudis are injuring our troops than Iranians.

The saddest part about the clip and the debate is that Scarborough is absolutely right. The Dems will role over and play dead again while countless more thousands die.

Another buck-passing move that Bush and his apologistas frequenly use is the "other administrations and other governments had the same intelligence." Yes, BUT other administrations and governments DIDN'T TAKE THEIR COUNTRIES TO WAR.