I think the Cheney team is doing all it can to bring war with Iran to fruition. I think the British sailor standoff from a few months back was, for them, a squandered opportunity. And I think they know the Iranian nuclear program is too slender a reed to use in the limited time they have left. So I think they will seek a way to provoke Iran into striking first. And they have a chilling means at their disposal: the two carrier groups in the Persian Gulf, which may well be sitting ducks against Iranian Sunburn anti-ship missiles.

Read this 2004 article:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7147.htm

and be very, very afraid.

What would happen if, for whatever reason, Iran sank a couple of American warships? George Bush would find another megaphone and another telegenic pile of bubble to stand on. The Andrew Sullivans and Thomas Friedmans of the world would drag their laptops and their Huggies with then as they dive under their beds, and again write trembling jibberish praising their Savior in Chief. And millions who only recently wandered out of Camp Jingo would scurry back in mortal fear.

...

My nightmare is that our rulers are now trying to figure out how to achieve this desirable result. Absent provocation like the sinking of a few U.S. ships, Bush will never get away with going nukular against Iran. So how to provoke Iran into taking the gambit? Incredibly, we are on now upon the second iteration of that genus of questions. We know that Bush talked with Tony Blair about how to goad Saddam into throwing the first punch against us three years ago. It is probably safe to assume that such high-school logic still prevails. So the Administration will look for ways to provoke such an attack again.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Armageddon_0402.html

That Richard Cohen is given space to display his childish ignorance on a regular basis is astounding. That this bête noire of rationality is considered by some a liberal is tragic.

Recall that Cohen also said ""the Iraq war is not the product of oil avarice, or CIA evil, but of a surfeit of altruism." And that "so many liberals, myself included, originally supported the war (because it) engaged us emotionally." He is the man who gave us such bon mots as "Corruption of any kind corrupts" and who advised a high school student, "You will never need to know algebra."

I've hammered at this moron for years, too.

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gullivers_trevails_0519.html

At this point it is hard to say whether Fred Hiatt's greatest sins are the Eds or the Ops.

Here, as in the outrages you point out almost daily, what the Bush team says is contradicted by what it does, and by what it said yesterday. But they have been getting away with this crap for years.

Last night Jon Stewart pointed out yet another core contradiction, juxtaposing Cheney's current "I don't have to comply with an executive order b/c I'm not part of the executive branch" with his previous "I don't have to comply with GAO/Congressional will re: the Energy Policy Task Force b/c of executive privilege."

It no longer matters. Logic is no longer operative, at least where it counts. The basis for a functional feedback loop -- a belief in logic and an abhorrence of hypocrisy -- has gone Elvis on us, and left the building.

When the press acquiesces in (and even aids and abets) the "all men are Socrates" nonsense about how everyone we kill in Iraq is al Qaeda, they are dancing on the grave of reason. Every time one Friedman Unit flows into another without objection or acknowledgment, reason is denied. Every Greenwald post is really an exhibit in an overwhelming case for the proposition that IOKIYAR has replaced all other measures of argumentation. But how do you apply reason against those who no longer adhere to it? What do we gain by pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are utterly untroubled by inconsistency?

I may be taking too short a view, and may be too pessimistic in my outlook. But I am appalled at how little has changed. I am gobsmacked at how unaffected the Administration has been by the 2006 election, and how pliant the press remains. Congress may be slowly, slowly, rising, but the courts now seem to be taking up the slack - witness yesterday's Supreme Court decisions.

We fight on, but it is hard to escape the feeling that the outcome is no longer in doubt.

Glenn, I think there is something really important here, especially in light of your previous post about the hostility of the MSM to bloggers.

Here's what happened:

1. NYT runs typically obsequious article accepting Administration spin.

2. THE SAME DAY, the author of that story takes your call and sits still for some rather pointed questions about his stunning lack of skepticism.

In the past, that feedback loop, if it existed at all, would have required weeks or even months, and would yield nothing more than a snooty, dismissive response from the oxymoronic "public editor." Making it happen within hours, and directly with the author, is a big deal.

We are still well short of preventing such stupidity. But the mere fact that Shane took your call and engaged in a discussion of his work with a blogger within hours of its publication is a big step.

Keep it up, Glenn. Who knows? Maybe they will so dread your calls that they will, like, do their jobs in order to avoid them.