The right-wing pundits who are longing for a terrorist attack (to prove themselves right) are guilty of believing their own propaganda.

First, the notion that liberals and Bush opponents don’t believe there is a terrorist threat is a “strawman” argument of their own creation. Those people don’t exist.

Secondly, they are miscalculating the reaction to such an attack. The public won’t suddenly fall in love with the war in Iraq, but rather want resources directed more toward Homeland Security and they’ll want more National Guard troops here at home to help in the event of another attack. The public, in short, will want a “surge” here at home, not in Iraq.

Third, such an attack will immediately undermine their ridiculous meme that “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” People will be asking, “how did being in Iraq keep us safe at home?” And the answer will be obvious.

Fourth, this won't be like after 9/11 when Bush had bi-partisan support, that won’t happen again. Bush chose to politicize 9/11 and terrorism, and he will not be given the benefit of the doubt a second time.

Finally, there will be only a short-term benefit of immediate “fear” that the Republicans will attempt to exploit, but that “fear” will soon turn to anger over the inability of Bush to protect us, and his feeble attempts to blame others.

If a terrorist attack happens under a Republican administration, how then will they plausibly argue that only a Republican administration can protect us from a terrorist attack?

And let’s not forget poll after poll that show Americans do not favor a war with Iran.

"If the U.S. government decides to take military action in Iran, would you favor or oppose it?" 68% were opposed in the most recent in CNN poll and those results are backed up in all other polls on this issue.

Yet, all leading Republican candidates are eager for a war, and Rudy Giuliani just hired Norman “bomb them to smithereens” Podhoretz as an advisor.

The Republican “fringe” has called their opponents un-American and anti-American for so long that some of them may believe their own propaganda.

Sadly, our media goes along with these talking points, and we’ve reached the point where the majority of Americans cannot turn on their TV or radio without be called “un-American” for their majority viewpoints.

http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm

Attaturk asks:

Why do I have the feeling that Jim Rutenberg was more responsible for this article than Michael Gordon?

That's an interesting question. How many of Gordon's atricles conflating "Al Qaeda with 9/11" with "Al Qaeda in Iraq" have been written with Ruttenberg?

http://rising-hegemon.blogspot.com/2007/07/why-do-i-have-feeling-that.html

In It can’t happen here Sinclair Lewis’ book about when fascism came to America, the lead character is an editor of a paper who opposed the new government. He watched as any member of the press who wasn’t co-opted by the new-government (known as Corposim) was forced out or ordered to write fluff – non-news items of no importance – which became suddenly much more prominent.

The only way to get real news about what the government was doing was from pamphlets secretly published by those who called themselves the "New Underground":

“The propaganda throughout the country was not all to the New Underground; not even most of it; and though the pamphleteers for the N.U., at home and exiled abroad, included hundreds of the most capable professional journalist of America, they were cramped by a certain respect for facts which never enfeebled the press-agents for Coporism.”

That term “press-agents for Corporism” certainly seems to apply to a good chunk of our modern media.

In a recent post discussing the extreme nature of the modern Republican Party, Digby observed that they now believe “they can manipulate the press so efficiently that the public will never really understand just what was done. This has freed them to adopt the Wall Street style of short term thinking that makes it possible to care nothing for the long range effects of their actions, as politicians might have before, and simply do whatever it takes to ‘win’ the next play.”.

“Liberal” bloggers (today’s "New Underground") have made it their business to understand just what the extremist Republican Party is really up to, and an important part of that is exposing the role played by the “press agents for Corporism” that dominate so much of our media.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/politics-in-extreme-by-digby-you-have.html

Let’s see, Bush supporters argue that Article II of the Constitution makes the president an all-powerful dictator in foreign policy – not accountable to Congress.

And now, they claim that the concept of “executive privilege” is a power our founding fathers gave to the president so he “never has to do anything he doesn’t want to.”

It’s the “Nyah-Nyah-Nyah – I’m better than you” theory of presidential power and it is nothing less than the behavior of an extremely spoiled child who doesn’t want to play by the rules.

What’s next- is Bush going to claim “no touchbacks!” and then claim the game is over and he wins?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(game)

President [Clinton] has no obligation to assist the irresponsible congressional [Republicans] in their blatantly partisan witch hunts.

Bill Clinton is perfectly within his rights to refuse subpoenas from Congress. He should not testify. Also, he is perfectly within his rights to refuse members of his administration from testifying before Congress. And, of course, Mr. Clinton is completely within the law and tradition by refusing private citizen Monica Lewinsky from speaking to Congress in their blatantly “partisan witch hunt.”

Moreover, his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky is protected by long-held tradition of “executive confidentiality" – which protects the President and his staff and no one can pursue this issue further – case closed.

Right?