The right didn't need to hold Bush's feet to the fire. He did everything they had whined about under Poppy Bush and Clinton.

So you think are no conservatives who genuinely oppose massive deficits and increased government spending? They're all lying? None opposed the Medicaid entitlements and No Child Left Behind? They weren't really angry that he didn't do more on gay issues and abortion? None had doubts about the Iraq war -- either the idea or the planning itself?

You think they were all 100% behind everything he did? Must be so nice to see your political opponents as idiotic cartoons and yourself as complex and thinking.

Cheney was rude, crude and absolutely sure of himself. The media hated him. He was homophobic,

Cheney was "homophobic"? Go look at the 2004 election. Of the 4 major party candidate -- including Kerry and Edwards -- Cheney had the most progressive views on gay issues. Unlike the other 3, who also vehemently opposed gay marriage, Cheney said states should be free to legalize gay marriage and that freedom means freedom for everyone.

I trust his instincts, and his instincts say to gather more information and work with people who disagree with him to find a solution that works.

I'll go ahead and save my "trust" for friends and loved ones and judge politicians based on their actions.

But to be clear: you'd like Democrats to be more like the Right was during Bush's first term?

There are two things at play here. There is criticism of the prize, and there is criticism of the person. You are offering criticism of the prize. You are offering an honest, substantive argument why you think it might not have been deserved.

The republicans (generally) are not. They are offering criticism of the person. They are attacking the peace prize not because of a belief that it was or was not deserved, but simply for who won it. They are not offering a substantive or honest argument.

Criticizing the President himself, personally, isn't a legitimate form of dissent?

Is this the type of thing you said when Bush was President?

That seems to have been from Iraq:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/overheard-in-iraq-ready/?scp=3&sq=times%20at%20war%20farmer%20iraq%20april&st=cse

The best line to come out of the Afghan war was

from an Afghan villager who when asked by an American soldier if he had seen any foreign fighters in the village lately answered simply, "yes, you."

You have a link to that? What are you referring to?

So we need to take Glenn's and Bacevich's arguments far more seriously in our policy debate while not letting them be automatically dispositive in an individual case.

I doubt Bacevich thinks it's dispositive. I know I don't. I think it's a major, major factor to weigh that, almost invariably, is instead ignored.

I believe the Washington Post wrote this story because they are Warmongers. It is written as to make it seem as though the Obama Admin is being deceptive. And that is wrong.. Support troups are never included in the call for escalation numbers. It is fine to report the numbers, I don't have a problem with that. But the reader should know what the numbers refer to and how they are typically reported. Unfortunately the way the numbers are reported in this blog continues the Frame that Obama's Admin has secretly escalated the war.

I didn't state, suggest or imply that Obama did anything deceitful with the troop deployment, so why you've spent all morning railing against that claim is a huge mystery. I have no idea what the Post reporters were secretly thinking when they wrote it, and neither do you.

The point of the Post article as I saw it -- the reason I cited it -- is because discussions of sending 20,000 more troops really means sending 35,000, once support is counted. It's how our presence in another country escalates beyond even how the escalation is commonly discussed, how we get sucked in further and further, how more and more our fellow citizens have their lives at risk, how more and more money goes up in flames.

One unnamed advisor makes a quote against bloggers

Like Susan Wood, you seemed to have skipped whole paragraphs of what I wrote, including the third paragraph which details that quotes like these regularly issue from the Democratic establishment, including the WH. It's not a one-time episode.

Moreover, Rahm Emanuel's entire modus operandi is reflected perfectly in that quote. I provided numerous examples of where their actions are perfectly consistent with that sentiment.

Feel free to disagree, obviously, but claiming this was some one-off, isolated, unrepresentative quote is the opposite of the argument I made.

We should start considering the possibility that journalist sometimes make sources up

How do we know they aren't lying when they say, "an official told me this or that"?

So reporters from all different outlets just keep fabricating the same basic quote, in different contexts, coming from Democratic leaders? Are they doing that in coordination or is it just an amazing coincidence?

You actually have a hard time believing that a White House adviser says these things?

Greenwald's reputation suffered today

As he wrote a column based on the paraphrasing of an anonymous adviser, that is, the guy who allegedly say pro-gay bloggers should take their pajamas off.

That's not how you do journalism.

I see. So when there's a series of anonymous quotes coming from the White House all making the same point -- through America's largest media outlets -- a good journalist just ignores it all and pretends it never happens? Is that what you think should happen?

Glenn, you used to be one of my favorite columnists, but your version of Obama Derangement Syndrome is becoming as annoying as Glenn Beck's.

I spent four years being accused of "Bush Derangement Syndrome." I knew it was only a matter of time before that same epithet was hauled out by some Obama supporters.