Indeed, most of those who spewed such embarrassing tripe continue to do so today. ~ GG

Let’s not forget that some of the most embarrassing such tripe recently came from Australia, where conservative columnist Andrew Bolt let loose with a “victory” speech that has yet to be outdone by our own gloating warmongers – they couldn’t top it, so they just praised it profusely. Take it away, Andy:

“What measures of success do critics of Iraq’s liberation now demand? Violence is falling fast. Al Qaida has been crippled. The Shiites, Kurds and Marsh Arabs no longer face genocide. What’s more, the country has stayed unified. The majority now rules. Despite that, minority Sunni leaders are co-operating in government with Shiite ones. There is no civil war. The Kurds have not broken away. Iran has not turned Iraq into its puppet.

And the country’s institutions are getting stronger. The Iraqi army is now at full strength, at least in numbers. The country has a vigorous media. A democratic constitution has been adopted and backed by a popular vote. Election after election has Iraqis turning up in their millions….

I repeat: the battle for a free Iraq has been won……

Was Iraq worth it? Yes. It stands, it stays, and the winning of Iraq was worth it, indeed.”

Bolt has been Howard’s biggest defender for his Iraq policy, and he’s adopted all of the smear tactics of our far right as well.

No doubt, like Krauthammer and Victor Davis Hanson, he will continue to proclaim “victory” and gloat, as well as insult the intelligence of the Australian public.

However, it looks like the Australian public finally came to the conclusion that Mr. Bolt had no idea of what he was talking about. Bravo!

We can only hope the American public comes to the same conclusion about our own war cheerleaders who are just as delusional, and even more dangerous.

http://tinyurl.com/3e2kmc

While it’s absolutely true that Howard’s close relationship with Bush and Rudd’s promise to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq was just one of many issues in this election (and not even the most important), I think that it is also true that had John Howard won, neo-con cheerleaders (like Mark Steyn and Andrew Bolt) would be trumpeting his victory as the singular result of Howard’s embracement of Bush’s “war on terror” policies.

It would have been a Bush victory, a neo-con victory, a pro-war victory – the “we’re winning in Iraq” crowd would be howling at the Melbourne moon.

Is there really any doubt about that?

Come on, think about it -- Memeorandum would be awash in gloating, self-congratulatory “faux Civilization Warriors” patting themselves on the back like they just proved that Scott Beauchamp doesn’t exist.

Instead, we’re reading tepid, meaningless phrases like “politician ubiquity fatigue” (from Protein Wisdom). The same is true all over Right Blogostan, where they are a tad disappointed, but telling us that really, this outcome is no big deal.

However, had John Howard won it would have been a very big deal - if they were honest (and we all know they’re not) they’d admit that.

Howard’s defeat means that we don’t have to suffer through endless right-wing nonsense about how right he was about the Democratic Party being “the terrorist party of choice.”

For that, I’m thankful. (It’s not too late for that, right?)

Yet Klein's function -- like those of most of his colleagues -- isn't to report what actually happened, so he'll never say that.

This is exactly why such a high percentage of Americans came to believe that Sadaam was behind 9/11.

There was no one in our media to point out that these assertions were not only just GOP talking points, but completely false ones at that.

Klein’s “function” (like so many of his colleagues) is to give the illusion of neutrality and objectivity to GOP spin. It worked well on the Saddam myth.

And, since the only ones who are pointing out their true function are bloggers it is imperative that bloggers be dismissed as “untrustworthy” at the very least, if not outright insane conspiracy theorists.

You will notice that if someone does attempt to refute Glenn, it will not be on the facts, but on the “tone” he takes (“hysterical”) or a personal attack that will have the message: don’t believe what this person is saying.

That’s the true purpose of the establishment media’s condescension toward bloggers and alternative media – it’s so they don’t have to refute actual charges or confront the facts of a particular issue. That’s a very important purpose and why bloggers will continue to be ridiculed and dismissed as “not serious.”