Who would have thought that Hannity's foil could be so aggressive on his own show? And Glenn is, as expected, totally demolishing Gaffney, who's not making any sense at all and sounding like a pantywaist lunatic who craps his pants at the sight of gerbils who look at him funny.

Every time I've been on with Alan debating a right-wing neocon guest - David Horowitz and David Rifkin were two others -- Alan has been aggressive that way. I think he's good when he's in his environment and feels like he has ammunition and arguments. I've seen him on H&C before when he has used effective research or arguments from this blog (as he said) and similar blogs and he can be effective. The format of H&C, though, the way all issues are framed, is designed to make him lose from the start.

Glenn, did I hear you claim that Frank Gaffney payed Ahmed Chalabi, and is that true? Every other statement you made was rock solid, except for that one possibly.

I don't think I said Frank Gaffney personally paid Ahemd Chalabi, and I certainly didn't intend to convey that. His band of neocon allies in the Pentagon, including Doug Feith, were paying Chalabi's INC $350,000 per month or so.

Come on Glen, there are much more pressing topics to write about than the irrelevant Broder. He's gone to the hasbeen field of useless commentators that no listens to along with Friedman and Drum.

Many people think that whatever they happen to be interested in on any given day is "The Important Topic and everything else is unimportant.

Broder writes in some of the most-read and most influential space in The Washington Post. Virtually all television reporters, producers, journalists and pundits read him and think what he says matters. He still influences how conventional wisdom is shaped and there aren't all that many people who are listened to or respected more by the Betway mavens.

Moreoever, independent of his specific infuluence, analyzing and understanding how he thinks and argues is illustrative of the pundit class generally, and therefore worthy of consideration for that reason alone.

Listening to Gaffney go on about the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, I was curious to see how he was spinning his information. I felt like you didn't directly address his claims that the Delpha report with any quotes, I looked up the group's findings online.

With these sorts of things, you have limited time and you have to pick which topics you think need the most airing. The debate about whether Saddam had WMD's is over. It's conventional wisdom that he had none. He's not going to convince anyone that Saddam really had WMDs, so I'd rather not spend my time debunking idiocies which are widely recognized as such.

Additionally, you can't resolve debates like that on a radio because he can keep making whatever claims he wants about what is in the report. This is someone who claimed Abraham Lincoln advocated the hanging of Congressmen. He will say anything. Why spend time in back-and-forth disputes over what the Delfeur Report said?

Americans aren't going to be convinced that Saddam had WMDs or anything close. Even George Bush admits he didn't. I don't mind if someone keep insisting that Saddam really had WMDs because it just makes them look absurd even to minimally informed people.

To return to Churchill/Chamberlain. Chamberlain was by no means the only one responsible for the capitulation to Hitler's aggression at Munich. He was aided and abetted by British and French "respected military experts" who wildly exaggerated German military capabilities at the time and lulled the British and French publics into accepting appeasement as the better course. Some might think there is a lesson to be drawn there.

Their knowledge of history is limited to these premises:

(1) Hilter is bad.

(2) Must fight Hitler.

(3) Churchill good. He fight Hitler.

(4) Chamberlain bad. He not fight Hitler.

(5) Every new bad leader = Hitler. Hitler Everywhere. Must fight Hitler.

That really does cover it.

How the same people who invoke Hitler and Chamberland almost never discuss Reagan and the Soviets. Especially the part where we helped them get bogged down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan thus accelerating the end of their empire.

Excellent point. And they also never mention that Reagan, whatever other faults he may have, really did continuously emphasize a desire to negotiate peace treaties with the Soviet Union and did negotiate with Gorbachev repeatedly. Of course, as I documneted once before in a post about Don Rumsfeld and the "appeasement" cliche, many on the right -- the neocon precursors (including Newt Gingrich) -- did accuse Reagan of appeasement and continuously raised the spectre of Chamberlain to try to bully him out of negotiations.

Poorly timed and hence apparently straining entry--the rest of the world figured this out a few years back.

Isn't so fun and esay to come and make assertions and not have to provide a single link or piece of proof for it?

I excerpted a discussion where ABC News' Mark Halperin spoke of Brit Hume as an "experienced journalist" and news anchor. That was from a few months ago. Brit Hume is widely talked about as a news anchor and journalist. YOU may have come to this realization years ago, but do you have proof at all that "the rest of the world" has?

Poorly timed

About "poorly timed": the point of the post - the central point - is that Hume's conduct this weekend went futher than it has before, making it impossible to maintain the pretense any longer. Additionally, his specific comments -- which were made yesterday -- about how the Democratic Party is perceived are factually false, as documented by the ample evidence I included to support the argument. You ought to try that next time you are eager to show how insightful you are by spewing opinions without the slightest support.