I noticed that when Klein first attempts to define “serious” he equates it with a “credible moderate position” on the issue.

For Klein, advocating that Bush does not have to obey the law and can spy on American in defiance of the law is a “moderate” position. Expecting the rule of law to hold forth in this country is thus rendered a “radical” concept, not to be taken seriously, kind of a “fetish.”

Klein pretends to speak, with his “moderate” positions, for mainstream America. But a funny thing happened along the way – the majority of Americans rejected many of his “moderate” positions. This is true of illegal warrantless spying and the surge.

Now perhaps the majority of American people are “radical” and unserious. Klein is free to make that case, but he doesn’t. Too often he takes a position that is at odds as to what most Americans want and proclaims it the “moderate” position – and the one that must be taken seriously. That’s the problem.

When Klein and his colleagues at Beltway Media Ltd. do this, they manufacture a faulty product – a “conventional wisdom” that does not exist; it is a fiction of their own creation, their own “reality.”

Their “reality” completely skews the debate that we are allowed to have in this country. It is a “reality” where liberals are dismissed out of hand as “untrustworthy” on National Security, which leaves the Kristols and Kagans to frame the debate on their terms.

It is this preposterous situation that Glenn mocks with, if you will excuse me, all seriousness.

The most recent “hateful, vicious and deeply personal attack” upon a veteran is yesterday’s attack on Wes Clark by Dr. Rusty "John Doe" Shackleford who portrays Clark as a completely insane unhinged moonbat conspiracy nutcase.

On Wes Clark, Rusty writes:

He essentially says that if Tillman was killed deliberately the orders “came from the top” and manages to invoke the idea of a Rovian plot along the way.

Wow. Just, wow.....

There’s one little problem with that though – there’s a video of what Clark actually said on Olbermann, and he said no such thing. Indeed, Clark says that we don’t even know if Tillman was murdered and he called for an investigation.

What he said may have "come from the top" was the coverup, he said absolutely nothing about orders to kill Tillman - nothing.

Of course Rusty’s readers won’t watch the video and come away with the impression that Wes Clark is a conspiracy nut. That’s what he wants.

It’s the same tactic with Scott Beauchamp: “if you destroy the messenger everyone will forget the message.”

That’s what they did with everyone who opposed the Iraq War in the first place. People like Scott Ritter were not taken seriously and Paula Zahn on CNN repeated his critic’s accusations that he was “drinking Saddam’s Kool-aid.”

Ritter, although he was absolutely correct, was portrayed as a “nut” and everyone quickly forgot his message - that Saddam didn’t have WMDs.

Killing the messenger, in that case, worked. Will it work for them again?

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/188861.php

“The arguments against negotiating with Syria and Iran were also made against negotiating with the Soviet Union, and by some of the same people.”

Ronald Reagan didn’t listen to them. Instead, he took an “extreme” leftist position and negotiated with them.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116658378080955371.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

This holocaust denial thing is brilliant. They're putting this guy, whose middle name is Hussein, out there, saying he wants to go play in the sandbox with a holocaust denier. That's brilliant politics if you're a Democrat. And now he's got to deny it..

~ Chris Matthews

But it wasn’t Hillary Clinton who brought up “this holocaust denial thing” that Matthews finds so brilliant – that’s a neo-con talking point from Stephen Hayes.

Hillary did not rule out playing “in the sandbox with a holocaust denier” (to use Matthew’s term) she just said she’d want to know the promise of a meeting and what the “intentions are” before you schedule it at that high of a level.

So this “play in the sandbox with a holocaust denier” is not “brilliant politics if you’re a Democrat” at all – it’s strictly a neo-con talking point for those who will never talk to Iran. It’s really stupid politics if you’re a Democrat, and it’s not consistent with Hillary’s position to pursue “very vigorous diplomacy” at all.

Chris Matthews isn’t promoting Hillary as much as he is promoting the “brilliant” neo-con spin from Stephen Hayes.

No wonder conservatives complain so loudly about Matthews being “a liberal” – it gives him the perfect cover to deliver their talking points for them.

Too bad for them that liberals have caught on.

The real story about this leak is that some anonymous source at the White House is now accusing Gen. Hayden of lying in his 2006 press conference with his denials that such a “data mining” program existed.

Gen. Hayden, your response please?

This same anonymous source is implying that FBI Director Mueller committed perjury in his testimony before Congress by saying that the dispute involved a “much discussed” NSA program, which the “data mining” program clearly wasn’t.

Your comment, Director Mueller, did you lie to Congress when you said that the dispute was about a “much discussed” program? Or did you consider the “data mining” program leaked today “much discussed?”

Director Mueller?