that hankest expects us all to excuse his various misspellings, but he got all pissy when Glenn misspelled his name. As if there's any difference to the rest of us whether it's "hankest" or "hankfest."

If you're gonna bust someones balls over points that don't prove or disprove the main thesis, why get mad when people turn the tables on you?

Nice one. I often throw in "believe that humans can live inside the belly of a whale, and once lived beyond 900 years old, and that Noah housed a male and female representative of every living creature on the planet on one single boat."

In 2000 I didn't know about Bush's National Guard or DUI. I also bought all the crap being flaoted about Gore. Imagine my idignation when I found it it was bunk, and who it was responsible for spreading that bunk. I would never have voted for Bush in a million years, but there was enough crap about Gore floating around that I chose to vote for Nader. This, in a nutshell, is what motivated me to become a Democrat. Being some marginalized independent wasn't doing any good.

Maybe I'm delving into semantics here, but isn't the entire notion of a liberal bias in the media about the clearest example of an oxymoron there is? I mean, bias and liberal mean the exact opposite thing! At times, a case might be made for a left wing bias, or a bias towards the Democratic Party's point of view, but a liberal bias is impossible. For that matter, just thinking of the definition of "liberal," it seems like liberal is what the media should be striving for: Broad-minded, lacking in prejudice or bias, listening to all views, etc.

That Nancy Pelosi would even entertain the idea of that Syrian trip and not be aware that she could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. I mean, what is her staff up to? Isn't it their job to advise her against such a dangerous enterprise? I had no idea she was the sort of person who would take such a risk or be caplable of such an obvious oversight. I mean, sheesh, everyboy knows about the Logan Act.

"So let's see if I have this straight....."

Funny. You've never gotten it straight so far, why start now?

if Ross's four "anonymous sources" were: Libby, Rove, Cheney, and Addington?

"Now where do you think that idea came from?"

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Not many people will argue that the Bush Administration "intended" for the Iraq occupation to turn into such a catastrophe. But it did. And it did because the post war planning was arguably non-existent, among other well documented reasons. I think a good analogy would be that drunk drivers don't "intend" to kill other people on their way home from the bar. But they do, and we make them pay a price for their criminal negligence.

Like Silverback said, why did things change after 9/11? Why didn't your perspective change after the Oklahoma bombings? Or the bombings at the Atlanta Olympics? Weren't those both terrorist attacks on US soil? Oh yeah, I remember. Those were white, English-speaking terrorists. And in Eric Rudoph's case especially, a terrorist who sees eye to eye with Bush on a wide range of issues. A member of his "base," so to speak. I guess those terrorists must be much less scary than the foreign, brown-skinned variety.

Whatever else it was, Iraq was a stable nation under Saddam. Stable, and no threat to the US. How does an extremely destabilized Iraq, in the middle of a civil war, help our security interests at home, and our interests and our allies interests abroad? Other than the obvious boon to the military industrial complex (Haliburton).

I'd love to see the total number of US armed forces recruits compared to the number of al Qaida recruits and the number of Iraqi Army defections over the last four years.

ps--Am I the only person who gets really annoyed by the way Bush insists on inserting "the" between "September" and "11th"? Why doesn't he just say "9/11" like everyone else? Does "September THE 11th" have more gravitas, or something? Is it like saying "x-mas" in Bushworld? I don't get it.

I also think it's interesting how whenever Bush says "in other words" it's often something very plain and needs no fleshing out, OR it's something very plain that needs no fleshing out that he totally confuses by attempting to flesh out. Often it's right after he's used "a big word" that he thinks no one else will understand.

I hope tiberius wasn't suggesting that there was any substance in Bush's speech. And as far as Clinton goes, I think there's a lot of substance to peace, prosperity and budget surpluses. But I guess substance is in the eye of the beholder.

Maybe I read his post wrong, but it seems like Commander Ogg (and to a certain extent Manhattanite, too), was complaining about the MSM giving Bush a free pass, AND complaining about Tim Grieve giving Bush a hard time "for nothing" because there's "nothing we can do about it." Given the conclusion Mr. Ogg comes to, its seems like he advocates giving Bush a free pass for the duration of what's left of his term. Since we can't do anything, why bother, right? Stop paying any attention, just stick our heads in the sand for two more years. That makes a lot of sense.

My advice to people like Manhattanite and Commander Ogg is that if you don't give a shit anymore, fine, don't read War Room. But for those of us who DO think this is still important, who enjoy reading Tim Grieve, and derive a certain amount of entertainment out of this, let us have our fun. Don't come here and accuse US of wasting OUR time! I think it's you guys, with all your pent up nihilism, who need to get a life.