Jack, you have a lot of nerve posting your authoritarian, disingenuous junk here.

You take exception to Glenn's use of the word "ignore." Maybe a better word--a stronger word--is "defy." Either way, you get he same result. Right now, the funding bill that congress sent to the president represents the will of the majority of congress, AND the majority of Americans. Given that, who is really being "un-American" here? The president has made it quite clear that he is going to do whatever he can and wants, regardless of what the American people think. THAT is fundamentally un-American. If you don't believe that, you just don't understand the definition of "Democracy" in the slightest.

You bring up Congress's original authorization of the war. A different congress, a different time, under different circumstances given public opinion then vs. now. The war funding bill that congress just sent the president is an "emergency" supplemental bill. It is separate from the oringinal war authorization you cite. Bear that in mind.

As far as your second post goes, the fact that you quote Glenn's "Congress has refused to fund the entire venture" words, leaving out the "Leave aside the (not entirely clear) question of whether..." part that came before it changes Glenn's meaning entirely. It just doen't get any more dishonest than that.

"Unfortunately, lame begets lame."

You are living proof of that. Truer words have never been spoken.

I personally don't think Glenn hits the hyperbole button. But I think it's interesting that one of the more common criticisms aimed at liberals is that they're "too cerebral," and "don't show enough emotion."

She has just as much legal standing on this issue as Judith Miller did.

You haven't heard that one? Oh my god, I hear it all the time. And the "unmotional" one as well. Yes, it's very "throw shit against the wall to see what sticks." But the "unemotional" tag is how they successfully pinned, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry. The theory is that's Bill Clinton's "magic" was that he could relate to people on an "emotional" level, too. Unlike other liberals or Democrats, etc. And I see it comming again in 2008 with Obama, and Hillary. I've seen Obama speak in person, and he's good, but he's certainly no "firebrand." And we all know that names people are calling Hillary, none of which are "warm."

I mean, our brethren in the Middle East have responded so well to threats and public belittlement in the past, we should just keep on doing it, right?

Thanks.

"And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking."

In other words, Newt does care how long the Iranians hold the sailors, what's really impportant is that he get his message across. To these Republicans, our men and women in uniform are nothing more than pawns and fodder.

Having trouble with the tags and had to re-type twelve times. Make that "doesn't" care in the second paragraph, not "does."

I'll waste as little of our time here as possible. I've read you, and I've read Glenn. You convince me of nothing and you've proven nothing. Spout all the authoritarian nonsense you like. George Bush, whether you like it or not, was never given a "mandate." Not by Congress, and not by the voters of this country. Not by a long shot. A cowed Congress gave him permission to go to war, not the Keys to the Kingdom. He's supposed to be responsive to the voters of this nation. Our Democracy is not, "thanks for electing me, I'll check back with ya in four years..." The voters of this country have every right to be pissed off and to pressure our representatives to do what they can to limit the damage he's trying to do. Trust me, the Republican Party will pay for his arrogance for a long time.

Your capacity for projection is Herculean.

Oh to be a poor, put upon, victimized conservative! These days it seems everyone is against them. You know, the jews, the blacks, the mexicans, the liberals, the lawyers, the intellectuals, Hollywood. Pretty much everyone except for the current occupant, and the corporate oligarchy he serves so faithfully.

I just don't see how it can be measured in any scientific way. It's SO subjective, and different with each person, and so dependant on all sorts of variables that change as often as the news changes. I don't see how anyone can expect it to be placed in any sort of black or white context.

For example, I have to rely on the media to tell me what happened in west coast baseball games because I go to bed before those games are over. The next day, I read the scores and I can trust that they are right. What have I got to lose? But with a situation like the story Glenn is citing, with an entire story's reliability being placed on one or a few anonymous sources, I have to take it with a huge grain of salt. And that's fine. What's not fine is that this dubious story then begins to be treated like the gospel truth and repeated by other media sources and bloggers.

If I had to answer a survey about trust in media, I would want to place an asterisk next to every answer, and would want to explain, and add qualifying factors that my level of trust varies depending on each individual story and each particular media outlet.

I understood it how Glenn meant it. His wording did not seem misleading or confusing to me. Perhaps hankest was projecting his own opinions of what Glenn was writing, changing the meaning for himself only. I imagine Hankest has a few preconceived notions of what Glenn, and other liberals in general, believe.