"Progressives... brought us 9/11...."

"I'm certain Glenn and his followers would laughed[sic] at any warning that Al queda[sic] was going to fly planes into the WTC just like they laugh at Iran now."

A few points. 9/11 occurred under Bush's watch, not Clinton's. The reason it happened during Bush's watch is because Clinton KEPT it from happening, and it was the Bush administration that did all the ignoring and laughing. It is very well documented that Bush and his team did not see bin Laden as a serious threat before 9/11, to the point of accusing Clinton of being "obsessed" with bin Laden. When Clinton tried to go after bin Laden, Republicans accused him of "wagging the dog" which created enough public and political pressure that he had to back off. This is all well documented fact. The sort of thing joe has NEVER provided to back up any of his "points" when posting here at Salon. Now THAT is sad...

Lastly, give us ONE example of a credible liberal who's "laughing" at Iran. Or even "ignoring" or "dismissing" the threat that Iran poses. Or a case where a liberal advocates any of the things you accuse them of. You can't. Once again, you are making shit up and accusing us of saying things we have never said. For the 1,000th time, you’re arguing with straw men to make your point.

Wait a second. Neocons are using Libya's "capitualion" as an example of how their Iraq policy has succeeded? I thought their mantra was that "terrorists couldn't be trusted"? That's what they say everytime we suggest diplomacy. So simply because it serves the neocons' purpose right now--Libya can suddenly be trusted? Hilarious. The volume of double-speak coming from Iraq war supporters these days is defening...

"Why not include the part where Odom admits to Hewitt that he doesn't know how many people were killed under Saddam, but would be interested in finding out. As I said, Odom's got tunnel vision."

If neocons were so damned concerned about how many Iraqis were killed by Saddam, why weren't they protesting in the streets during Clinton's administration calling for an Iraqi invasion? Why did they accuse Clinton of "wagging the dog" anytime he warned, threatened or took action against Iraq?

Why did Republicans get so upset and accuse Clinton of wagging the dog everytime he ordered bombings in Iraq in retaliation for violations of the no-fly zone?

If Republicans were so concerned about how many people Saddam killed, why did Rumsfeld go visit him and have his picture taken with Saddam smiling and shaking his hand?

Why does the Bush administration only release troop death numbers, and leave out deaths of private contractors working in Iraq?

If neocons are so concerned about how many Iraqis died under Saddam's regime, why don't they care how many Iraqis have died since the US invasion and during the occupation afterwards? Shouldn't they be demanding that the Bush administration release accurate numbers?

The answers to these retorical questions are: Neocons don't care about the Iraqi people. They don't care about our troops' lives, either. They don't care about how many Americans or Iraqis have died there--not in the 80s, 90s, now, or in the future. They only care about low taxes, and giving blind support to the Bush administration.

The reason Glenn is calling out Hume and not his counterparts on the left is because his counterparts on the left DON"T HAVE THE EAR OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS POLICY ADVISORS!!! Hume, Kristol, Hewitt, Limbaugh, etc. obviously do. How many times does this need to be explained?

And for those who think Juan Williams is some left wing lackey, Media Matters has MANY choice quotes where Williams parrots right wing talking points.

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/search_results?qstring=juan+williams

is that there aren't any "great conservatives voices" at all, let alone on NPR. If you weren't so narrow-minded and partisan, you would understand that very simple fact. Your leading light, Bill Kristol once scolded liberals for warning that Shiites and Sunnis wouldn't get along very well after the invasion. He called it "pop-psychology." He's an idiot.

Lastly, regarding Juan Williams vs. Britt Hume. Hume is widely respected on the right, not the left. Williams is respected on neither side.

You seem so sure of yourself regarding your opinion of Media Matters. Care to give us some examples of their inaccuracy? Don't bore us with tales of Brock's past before Media Matters. His story is well-known. What I want is clear, substantiated examples proving that any their claims are patently false. This exercise for our benefit shouldn't waste too much of your time, given how sure you are of yourself.

Please educate us.

1. You can't win an argument citing "I bet you'd find."

2. MM's point is valid, paricularly since we weren't "at war" during Clinton's term. And there are letters from neocons over and over today arguing that Fox and other MSM talk shows represent a balanced number of pundits on the right and left. That's just laughable. Even IF Clinton supporters were over-represented ten years ago, MM's study shows a trend listing heavily toward the right. That's what's happening now and 5 years ago, not ten or 15 years ago. It's lopsided, and it's wrong.

3. My earlier point regarding Juan Williams' credentials as a leftist are well-supported by MM. He's got some real whoppers on there. And they're not "out of context."