I don't understand a professional manipulator like Matthew Dowd could be taken in by someone who is so easy to see through. Saying his "personal affection for the president" stopped him from protesting is like drinking one's own Kool-Aid.

I only hope that, for the good of the country and to regain his sense of right and wrong, he starts talking about the slimey techniques Bush, Rove, & Co. have used to build and solidify their power. The only real way to show that he's made a real break with W is to stop caring about what his Republican friends think of him and start caring about what's best for this country. This might also re-earn him some self-respect.

This is another example of the Bush administration doing what it does best: taking advantage of disadvantaged people. First it creates an economy of more have-nots than ever before, then it invades a country for reasons it makes up, pressures disadvantaged kids into volunteering because they have few other choices, sends them into a war that creates huge profits for big businesses that defraud the American taxpayers out of billions of dollars, either gets those volunteers killed, injured, or redeployed until they get killed or injured, then "supports" them by ignoring them after surgery or sending them back to the Middle East because the government "needs the numbers."

We desperately need an administration that cares about people who aren't in the top 10% of income and wealth in this country.

I think this article is exactly right in its perspective.

First, Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq and anything he and his team says are meant to justify it. They don't evaluate real pros and cons; they just give justifications for staying.

Second, the Green Zone, the new embassy, and the bases are not meant to be temporary.

Third, the neocon "team" gains from war. It keeps their consulting, their oil and construction services, their private war machines, their propaganda services, and their lobbyists humming along. Why would they want to stop?

Fourth, it wouldn't surprise me if Bush and the neocons really feel like it serves the best interests of the United States if Iraq becomes one big oil zone without many people around to claim it for their own.

Fifth, the marketing team wants us to think that things are always looking brighter. The most recent example of this is John McCain telling us how safe the Baghdad marketplace he went to is. He saw it with his own eyes, while surrounded by only about 100 American troops and two helicopters.

Sixth, things are not only looking bright but we're always winning, no matter what is actually happening.

Seventh, even if the pressure from home got so great that Bush started thinking of leaving, he still wouldn't do it, because leaving is an acknowledgement of defeat.

Two Sundays ago, "Meet the Press" had a long roundtable discussion on a variety of topics, with three journalists and one neocon apologist. They were Chuck Todd, Judy Woodruff, David Gregory, and Kate O'Beirne. Chuck Todd and Judy Woodruff are insightful and unbiased, as far as I can tell. While David Gregory has made headlines for challenging White House press secretaries a handful of times over the past few years, he is pretty much down the middle in his presentations when I see him. Kate O'Beirne, on the other hand, is as neocon as they come. She even supports an immediate pardon for Scooter Libby. Putting her on a panel without someone to balance her extreme views is unfair and unbalanced, the sort of thing we might expect to see on Fox.

I think this is pretty standard in the mainstream media. I saw a segment on "Hardball" about a week ago where Mike Barnicle was matched against Ron Christie. Christie is very quick and an excellent argumentarian; so even though he is backing Bush's policies, he doesn't have the facts to work with like Mike Barnicle does. But, in my opinion, Christie made Bush look good (like lipstick on a pig) even without having the best material to work with.

The mainstream media needs to realize that it is not fooling as many people as it thinks it is and that their insidiousness may be a big reason why television news is not only losing viewers but alienating viewers.

It's very clear that the administration had no interest in keeping those US Attorneys. If Gonzales had any interest in being fair to his employees, he would have contacted them and explained what he perceived the problems were and given them a chance to change.

One of the senators mentioned today how ironic it was that justice is supposed to be based on evidence but the Justice Department seems to make its most important decisions without using evidence.

It reminds me of how Paul Wolfowitz is basing his World Bank presidency on fighting corruption but is himself corrupt in who he hires and how he rewards people.

And that brings us back to how George W. Bush has based so many appointments, including Alberto Gonzales', based on loyalty instead of qualifications.

Does it seem like a lot of people in this Administration are a lot alike?

I think it's clear why Bush seems to be the only one around who supports Gonzales. It's because Bush, better than anyone else, knows that Gonzales is looking ridiculous because he's trying to protect Bush and Rove. If Gonzales wasn't protecting Bush, he and Rove would have been gone long ago.

Rush is a little confused. Yesterday, he took back what he said on Thursday and claimed that he didn't really mean that Cho was a liberal. He said was joking. Limbaugh now says it was liberalism that caused Cho to kill 32 innocent people.

When you listen to his monologue, in context, it's clear that there was as much humor there as there was in Imus's comment about nappy-headed hos. You can find the video here.