We're citing one poll that's a year old, another that's nearly six months old, and ONE SINGLE POLL that's current.

First of all, that's some bad math on your part, or sad reading skills. Glenn cited four (4) polls. One is nearly a year old, and one is nearly 6 months old, as you pointed out. Two are from last month. Significantly the two recent ones are from Rassmussen, the Fox News of polling organizations (one from July 2, one from July 12). No liberal media bias there.

Given Glenn's exhaustively thorough tendencies when putting together an argument, I seriously doubt he cherry-picked these polls. Far more likely is that they were the only polls he could find that asked these questions. So I'm not really sure where there's room to scream with indignation about this.

On the other hand, I notice you apparently have no problem with republican pundits who make all sorts of outrageous claims with a complete lack of supporting evidence. Isn't that odd?

So what exactly is your point? That these two Rassmussen polls (which reinforce the findings of the earlier polls, thereby establishing a trend) are wrong? Or do you not contest the findings, but just have an issue with the fact that Glenn didn't cite many polls (although you have no problems with pundits who cite zero polls)?

Or perhaps this whole line of discussion makes you feel existentially uncomfortable as you see your dreams of an authoritarian state fading away, such that you can do nothing but nitpick minor (or irrelevant) issues in hopes of defusing the whole thing? If so, congratulations: you're a troll. You need to meet Elephantman and Tiberius. They share your pain.

The only regrettable thing, Tiberius, is that your cowardly ass is not over in Iraq right now, waiting for some armor. Perhaps you could explain to your buddies that they should just calm down, it's not like the order has been abandoned.

You guys are living in a dream world. Remember, al-Qaida is working to get nukes.

So? The Dominianists are working to bring about the Rapture and the Apocalypse. Moral of the story: just because a bunch of crazies are working at something big and destructive doesn't mean you have to completely abandon the rule of law and representative government as a response. (I know, I know, you Republicans dearly wish this were so, but sorry to tell you, it's not.)

And stop blaming 9/11 on Bush. Just this week a just-declassified CIA critique blames the CIA during the Clinton years for the failure to stop 9/11.

Let's take a minute to point out hypocrisy. According to you, Clinton deserves more blame for 9/11 than Bush. However, it was Clinton who identified the Al Qaeda threat and strongly communicated it to Bush, who basically let it go in one ear and out the other. Granted, I accept that Clinton made mistakes about Al Qaeda, but let's remember that it wasn't Clinton who got a PDB a month before 9/11 claiming that OBL was going to strike in the US, and then went fishing. If it had been Clinton, you guys would be screaming this fact from the tallest mountain. As it stands, however, you're notably silent.

So I ask you, what is more important, learning the lessons of 9/11 and making our leaders accountable, or providing political cover for "your guy"?

Let me guess...