by Joe Klein's paragraph that I actually left a positive comment over at Swampland. Since his is just one example of several journalists who have abruptly decided to tell the truth, I can't help but wonder what has happened to allow this sudden change.

Of course the issue itself is crucial. The entire Administration's MO from the get-go was to use the public's ignorance of details in order to conflate the enemy who attacked us with one who didn't in order to justify what any normal person would regard as an act of aggression. So far, its worked like a champ.

Maybe when journalists heard Bush say:

“The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq,” he said, “were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that’s why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”

they thought it was so jaw-droppingly dishonest that they couldn't resist any longer no matter what their editors were telling them.

To him there ALL murdering Muslims.

Never mind that Muslims make up 1/3 of the planet. It just doesn't matter to him. There all the same. Kill them all.

Typical proud ignorance.

He's exactly who our leader aims his rhetoric at. Nuance is for sissies. Ignorance is strength.

And he brags about it no less.....

But I will remind everyone that shooter is convenient because he usually shows up just in time to function as an illustration of the topic under consideration, in this case as someone who's too stupid and lazy to notice that we've attacked the wrong country.

By the way, I'd be really upset if we didn't have assets working very hard in Pakistan. Whether that constitutes an "invasion" or not will be left as an exercise for the reader.

There's been a lot of discussion on this forum about how the press has been acting as a megaphone for the administration and that it does so in order to have continued access and that anybody who doesn't play the game is punished.

I'm wondering if the new-found ability to tell the truth (regarding the identity of Al-Qaeda in Iraq for instance) isn't the result of the realization that they don't need to play that game but only if they act in concert.

The Tillman story also represents a tremenous opportunity for the press to finally find its voice because it has all the elements present in most made-for-TV dramas. Heroes, obvious villians, not-so-obvious villians to add drama to the second hour, dishonest officials and heroic ordinary citizens. It's perfect!

Self-shredding documents....

Sounds like a BushCo dream come true!

so incredibly dishonest that he's incapable of imagining that there are people who act on principle. He's incapable of understanding that there are people who's objections to the administration are based on the administration's behavior as opposed to their identity or party affiliation. He really doen't understand the first thing about what goes on here or what motivates people.

He just blithely assumes that everyone is as dishonest and unprincipled as he is as fires away based on that assumption and nothing else. The really sad part about it is that he views the whole planet that way. Not just Repubs vs Dems but Christians vs Muslims. It poisons his thinking and his style of thinking is depressingly commonplace.

Seems to be a recurring theme but I suppose that its so damn useful that its hard to resist.

In the Muslim world, it is common knowledge -- a cause celebre -- that we have imprisoned, and abused if not tortured, an Al Jazeera journalist with no due process whatsoever, due -- at least in large part, if not entirely -- to his work as a journalist.

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the revealing belief of neoconservatives that any neoconservative -- including ones charged with and even convicted of the most serious wrongdoing -- must, by definition, be wrongfully accused.

Just putting these two passages side by side puts in sharp relief the mental processes at work here. If an Arab journalist is imprisoned its because he's obviously guilty and no evidence is necessary to support the claim. If an American neocon is imprisoned then it's because he's obviously being persectued for his political stance and no evidence to the contrary need have any bearing on the situation.

What we have is identity politics at its ugliest. And America's reaction is to merely shrug its shoulders and get on with life as if there's nothing wrong.

What they demand, first and foremost, is unwavering loyalty to the Cause, and that Cause is shaped predominantly by Middle East militarism, beginning with Iraq.

The "Cause" as you term it isn't even as complex as you state it. The "cause" is to hate foreigners. That's why favoring war in the Middle East has to be accompanied by advocacy of a wall between the US and Mexico. That's why the hatemongers insist that our enemies are ALL Muslims and not just the ones who wish us harm. That's why shooter is still polluting the previous thread by asserting that failure to differentiate between citizens and non-citizens when discussing human rights is somehow cheating!

Just as not every dem is a hemp wearing vegan pacifist, not every repub is a war mongering isolationist hypocritically trying to spread democracy to the unwilling.

True enough, the problem is that it's the hemp wearing vegan pacifists and the war mongering gay-bashing xenophobes who pay attention during the off-season. That and the human-drama hungry press critters.

PS: war mongering isolationist is an oxymoron.

See LWM, you failed to differentiate between those who hate ragheads vs those who hate wetbacks vs those who hate faggots vs those who hate union employees vs those who hate brie-eating surrender monkeys. You therefore can't understand the various factions that reside under the GOP umbrella.

You left wing nut you......