As our corporate media goes down the same road as the Soviet Union, it is perhaps useful to remember how the Soviet citizens viewed their media:

The kind of disrepute into which Soviet journalism has fallen and the skepticism about what is being portrayed in the Soviet media has found its way into a number of jokes currently told among Soviet citizens. Radio Armenia is one of those jocular, mythical radio stations in the Soviet Union that accepts questions from its listeners and gives witty answers.

One question: Which is more useful, newspapers or TV?

Answer: Newspapers, of course, because at least you can wrap your garbage in them.

Another question: Can you wrap a bus in a newspaper?

Answer: Yes, if the newspaper has just published a lengthy speech of the general secretary.

Question concerning foreign affairs: How do we find out what’s going on in the world?

Answer: We believe the opposite of what TASS is denying.

The most famous joke, plays on the words "Ivestia" and "Pravda." Pravda means "truth" and Ivestia means "news," and both are the names of prominent newspapers. The joke is, "There’s no news in Pravda, and no truth in Izvestia."

Last night’s performance was also a joke. But I’m not laughing.

http://wpfc.org/AL1987.html

Oh, I have no doubt the Rs are grooming him for bigger things, and no doubt he is eager.

I just had a flashback to Col. North, testifying before Congress, wearing his uniform, his medals, a devout Christian and family man – who, raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth, and then lied like hell.

The Republicans loved that he lied to Congress – those lies made him a hero, and that catapulted him into a run for the Senate.

What? How can that be? How could he lie? He was wearing a uniform with medals – he had to be telling the truth – right? Why do you hate the troops? Why do you hate our glorious men in the military?

Well, not quite, once he was granted immunity, Colonel North freely admitted that he had shredded documents, lied to Congress and falsified official records.

Dick Cheney, then Senator from Wyoming, was impressed with his lying and praised Colonel North as “the most effective and impressive witness certainly this committee has heard.”

Enough said.

Reports of today’s hearing should read:

“David Petraeus, GOP operative and spinmeister, furthered his political career today.”

Dems want to pretend that it will be OK if we just get out…The truth is, it won't be OK if we get out. -- Ben Bochner

I’m not sure who is pretending “that it will be OK if we just get out” – who is saying that? (It isn't OK now.) To the contrary, many who want to leave acknowledge that it will not be “OK” - here’s one example, Kevin Drum from yesterday:

I think it's worthwhile for proponents of withdrawal to be honest about the likely aftermath of pulling out: an intensified civil war that will take the lives of tens of thousands and end in the installation, at least in the short-term, of an Iran-friendly theocracy. This is obviously not a happy outcome, but neither is it the catastrophe the Chaos Hawks peddle. The alternative is to babysit the civil war with American troops, spilling blood and treasure along the way, without truly affecting the course of events in any substantial measure.

I think that the hawks are betting that it will be bad enough that can use it to get back into power by using a “stab in the back” campaign by calling the Democrats mass murderers for the intensified civil war, and pretending that everything was “okay” until we pulled out, and they’ll point to Petraeus’ propaganda of today to pound that point home, hoping that Americans will forget that the facts never did support this propaganda. These are the same people, after all, who insist that we were “this close” to winning in Vietnam until we pulled out.

Many Republicans have already conceded the next election and are already thinking about how to get back into power. This propaganda campaign is part of that effort.

One example is Hugh Hewitt who today actually seems to admit that the public (not just the “fringe” lefty blogs) no longer supports this war. When asked how Republicans are supposed to stand by this war effort and still prevail in 2008, he responds:

They aren’t. In all likelihood, 2008 will be a disaster for Republicans at the ballot box. But we, the rank and file of the Republican party, expect Republicans to risk their comfortable offices in order to see the war in Iraq through to a satisfactory conclusion and to continue the war against the forces of Jihad. Let the political chips fall where they may.

With all their scandals, the Republicans would be in serious trouble even if they didn’t support an unpopular war. They’ve painted themselves into a corner with their extremist rhetoric, and this is their only option left – hunker down, hope for the worst to happen when we leave, and blame it on those who wanted to leave. It’s Vietnam 2.0. That shtick worked for them once, and it could again – that’s what they're thinking anyway.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_09/012029.php

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/91382a76-bfbe-44ba-9d08-e0199142f9cc