Like the NYT piece from a couple weeks back, also citing anonymous sources alleging Irans arming of Iraqis (insurgents? militias?) that looked to be not so subtle attempts at ratcheting up the rhetoric against Iran.

Also, that no one in the media points out the obvious: Fox News (sic) is a propaganda arm of the RNC. Is it just that it is too glaringly obvious to bother to point out, or that making that observation hurts the profession as a whole, or that you can't tell the lessers about the turd in the media punchbowl for fear of being unvited to the party circuit?

Will the shelf life of the capitulation caucus be any longer than the victory caucus? Perhaps someone should form a caucus to find out...

What's also interesting is how infrequently (like never) we hear the converse bit of wisdom, that perhaps the public doesn't want Republicans taking things "too far" in their refusals to deal with the Congressional Democrats.

Or, how public opinion didn't support the Republican witch hunts during Clintons presidency. That didn't deter Republicans from going "too far," nor prevent the media from cheering them on.

citing the... Wall. St Journal Editorial Page (which, as Lauer noted, suggested Pelosi's trip might be a "felony")...

Matt Lauer is a doofus. Does being on TV require a lobotomy? Since when is the WSJ editorial page a credible source on anything other than warmongering and crotch sniffing, tabloid-worthy paranoia? Doesn't their proclivity for publishing the worst kinds of unsubstantiated innuendo render anything they say worse than meaningless?

Oh yeah, Drudge their world...

Is there some kind of Likud police monitoring all discussions online waiting for any mention of Israel? WTF?!!

Kamiya's a racist for mentioning Israel in a piece about the failure of the press in the runup to the Iraq war? Get a clue. Look at the signatories to the PNAC and the authors of "A Clean Break."

Juan Cole is a left wing radical? Put the crack pipe down. Just because someone can formulate an intelligent thesis regarding the state of affairs in the Middle East that doesn't toe the Likud party line (let's see, horrible conditions for the untermenschen are okay in 2007. 1939, not so much) doesn't make him any less credible than it make the commenter attacking him less unhinged.

Hurl your offensive charges of anti-Semitism somewhere else. Hypocrites.

And you voted for Bush? HAHAHAHAHA

Yet another Bushbot confession.

My god, Bush sounds even more incoherent when transcribed...

...that two centuries later the US would be taken over by Tories? Or was it Stalinists? There is certainly nothing resembling actual American constitutional practices in the way this current crop of reactionaries operate.

That TIME would give Kristol a column just demonstrates how worthless and irrelevant they are as a journalistic publication. Damn, I wish I could be so wrong about everything, and be rewarded so handsomely. Is that the actual Bush legacy? The "Peter Principle" (de)meritocracy uber alles?

I guess all Bush needs now is a Praetorian guard.

Got Blackwater?

Thanks for the link. Strange bedfellows, indeed. Although in Jefferson's case, the complete and total lack of shame and ethics hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet. Gingrich, not so much.

They were immediately smeared by Bush followers and then more or less rendered irrelevant by the media.

Much like the topic, this too seems to be a recurring phenomenon. Seems like the easiest way to get out of the media spotlight is to say something negative about the administration. Maybe Ms. Goodling could take a lesson.

Perhaps we're going to have to consider beginning with sanctions and working with a Coalition to stop this rogue regime from its plans.

And always remember: the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or some such nonsense...

It's just too difficult for Republicans to let go of Clinton...

Even if it's vicariously through his cabinet members.

Citing anything with "Republicans" and "oversight" is too easy, and betrays your whole point.

But, thanks for playing. Maybe you can bring up Pat Roberts "investigations" as well, next time.

For actually, you know, trying to give an account of the music, rather than jumping to a preconceived notion of who is allowed to protest anything, that conveniently dovetails with their own ideology. I'll give it a listen.

Where's my "he's phoning it in?"

You get sick for a few days, and the trolls think they can start loafing. Slackers...

Remember, now, the issue isn't what did or didn't eventually happen to Rostenkowski.

Ummm, actually, the point you are trying to insinuate is that there was some type of obstruction that was sanctioned by Democrats. That is plainly belied by the conviction of Rostenkowsi. Claiming that the outcome of the case is not an issue is intellectually dishonest. If you are going to bring that up as some type of example, or charge, of hypocrisy, wouldn't your argument be better served if there was some substance to it? Wasn't the USA fired in the case you cite one of all the other USA's that resigned with the succession of the new administration, just like the administration that followed it, and just like what preceded it when Reagan came into office? (Poppy didn't have to, obviously). Do you even know what hypocrisy means?

It is journalism 101.

Do I need to even mention Bush's problem with diction? Nukular? Editing Bush's pronunciations to sound better is not journalism- it's editing, like one would expect of FOX (and sadly, those that imitate them). Attacking someone for failing to make the President sound more intelligent? WTF?