The real heroes in this situation aren't the frightened students and faculty who I'm sure, as details trickle out, helped the injured or those in danger. The real heroes aren't the police or campus security who responded and who are pictured carrying the injured to safety, before they were assured of their own safety.

No, the real heroes are the pundits and media who talk about how much more they would have done if only they'd been there. They're the brave souls who exploit the misery and suffering of others to increase their ratings and score political points.

Maybe someone should remind John Derbyshire that if he's looking for an opportunity to prove his bravery by charging someone who's shooting at him, his President has created a near-perpetual opportunity for him over in Iraq.

I think that this post, as well as the previous associated one, fail to rise to the standard of actually being a story. In essence they boil down to the fact that a newspaper with a known Republican bias actually has a Republican bias. This is only news if you actually believe in the abstraction of objective commentary.

The fact that the Washington Post has a bias is perfectly legitimate, in-fact it’s markedly more legitimate than the patina of objectivity evoked by the phrase "Fair and Balanced". If you have a problem with right-leaning bias, then you should also have a problem with left leaning bias, which leaves you with precisely enough room to have a dance party with a yet to be determined number of angels.

The problem with American political discourse is

a) The attempt by radical fringe elements to claim that their views are mainstream:

-Iraq has WMDs

-Satan is responsible for illegal immigration

-the President is above the law

-Paul Wolfowitz is the right man to tackle worldwide poverty and corruption

b) The attempt to vilify those who don't share your views:

-you're either with us or you're with the enemy

-Defeatocrats!

-timeline for defeat

(also see the complete works of Rove, Karl)

c) The requirement and willingness to make factually false arguments to support your radical and polarizing comments:

-aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment

-greeted as liberators

-most Americans want Congress to stop investigating Rove

-"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

(also see the complete works of Cheney, Dick)

If a paper wants to publish stories with a clear Republican bias, what's the problem? At least they're upfront about it. The problem isn't that people have different opinions, it’s that increasingly in America, they're unwilling to discuss their differences. If the Washington Post bothers you that much, just publish an article with an upfront liberal bias, maybe even start an on-line magazine based on that bias…. oh, right!

This seems like a no-brainer for the Democrats: Challenge each and everyRepublican candidate on whether they approve of George W. Bush and his administration at every opportunity. Unlike challenging the policies, which might turn around and are more easily spun, W.'s popularity appears set in stone. So force the Republicans to make a difficult choice: pander to the right-wing authoritarians who support the man and alienate the other 70% of the country, or tack to the middle and erode the "base" that has been credited for the previous two presidential "victories".

We must resist the ousting of Paul Wolfowitz because if he is fired for corruption it will only embolden the truth. And then who knows what havoc will be wrought on the neocons?

As satisfying as it would be to see both Bush and Cheney paraded off in disgrace, what would actually be accomplished? Bush is effectively a lame duck at this point and with new found congressional oversight the next two years are more likely to focus on what went wrong than any new initiatives by the executive. If the Democrats were actually able to gather the political courage to attempt a move like this I think it would be better spent in areas where the outcome would be more than simply symbolic. Take habeas corpus, or the politization of justice as only two examples. Addressing these issues has implications beyond '08 and undoing what the neoconservatives have done is far more important to America's identity and future than who sits in the Oval Office until then.

Even if both of those disgraces were dealt with, wouldn't it be more useful to focus on eliminating the next generation of neoconservatives (a la Wolfowitz) than to impeach. Look at how long Rumsfeld and Cheney have held power in Washington. What worries me isn't how terrible things are now, its that this could happen again when Jeb runs for President. Wouldn't it be more prudent to try and prevent the neocons from pulling the same tricks in another 20 years than to rub their faces in their own self-destruction now?