Or, as The New York Times's Michael Gordon sniped to Amy Goodman when she criticized his aluminum tubes story: "I don't know if you understand how journalism works."

Yes, heaven forbid these guys should try to get such an important story right.

One of the aspects of this that's really bothering me is that MSM "journalists" like Richard Wolffe love to paint the entire blogoshpere with a broad brush and assume that no blog is any more trustworthy or reputable than the worst of the lot. Nor do they (or he) care to distinguish leftwing blogs vs. rightwing blogs. Yet when anyone tries to criticize the MSM, each journalist wants to be judged on his own merits, or that of his own organization only. And in the case of ABC, even THAT is damning.

The main difference between blogs and the MSM is that blogs aren't beholden to any sort of corporate structure, and to a lesser extent, not beholden to high-ranking government officials whose approval is tied to access. How does that make the MSM more reputable than blogs?

light = dark

loud = quiet

tall = short

coming = staying there

I saw a great bumpersticker on the way to work this morning:

"I'm already against the next war."

I'm pretty sure that the previous administration bombed Bosnia and Iraq into "submission"

If we bombed Iraq into submission, then how could they have been enough of a threat to warrant our invasion? Either we bombed them into submission or we didn't. Make up your mind, shooter. "Submissive" and "dangerous, credible threat" seem like opposing descriptions to me. A "submissive" regime would not be one that possesses WMD's for example.

Sandy Berger wasn't dealt with and punished.

Can I be the first one to say this today?

Worst president ever.

It's not like Jefferson is going on all the Sunday talk shows a la Tom DeLay claiming it's nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, either. Pretty much all of DeLay's Republican brethren voiced dismay publicly at how he was "treated." Even the White House defended DeLay. And he's only one. There's Randy "Duke" Cunningham, and Bob Ney, and Mark Foley. All these guys defiantly proclaimed their innocence. Jefferson will get what's coming to him. Count on it. In fact, Republicans prefer that his case remain unresolved so they can keep pointing to it as an example. They need every bone they can dig up for folks like shooter.

Nor does Jefferson has any sort of "immunity." If that were the case, we wouldn't know anything at this point. The only reason we know about the $90,000 at all is because his home and office were searched. It doesn't sound like immunity in my book. And it's not surprising in the least that Hastert defended Jefferson. They are two peas in a pod.

I can't wait to see how the Republicans will feel about congress "micromanaging the war" with a President Hillary, Obama, or Edwards. They won't stand for a Democrat to have the sort of power that Bush has wielded over the last five years.

When observing how Bush supporters respond to the realization that they support the worst president ever, I find it useful to determine which stage of grief they happen to find themselves at that particular moment. Here at War Room, we see all types. Most often Shock or Denial, and rarely Acceptance. Acceptance would require self-examination and growth, two things completely foreign to Bush supporters:

* Shock stage: Initial paralysis at hearing the bad news.

* Denial stage: Trying to avoid the inevitable.

* Anger stage: Frustrated outpouring of bottled-up emotion.

* Bargaining stage: Seeking in vain for a way out.

* Depression stage: Final realization of the inevitable.

* Testing stage: Seeking realistic solutions.

* Acceptance stage: Finally finding the way forward.

"Sorry guys... nothing even remotely looks as bad as you want it to be."

And we have Denial!

Global Warming, Global Climate Change, whatever you want to call it. I think there's a big difference between an entire season of weather, vs. a weekend cold snap. We had some really cold days this past year, but the winter overall was the warmest on record. That's what's worth noting. I loved Glenn's analogy, and I also like the one comparing it to judging the health of the stock market by looking at it's performance over a few exceptionally good or bad days. You have to see what's happening over a long period of time. The Global Climate change naysayers just aren't doing that (Not that it's surprising). And you have to also look at the overall climate of the entire planet, not just one section of one continent for a few days.

I'm convinced that shooter has a persecution complex. It's not enough for him to simply support Bush/Cheney, etc. He has a strong need to be persecuted and victimized for his support, preferably on a daily basis. What other reason would he have for coming here and making a complete ass of himself? Shooter isn't happy unless he's vilified by liberals for his beliefs. Pretty sick, if you ask me.

I'm not a real Dr., I just play one on tv.

It's either my first theory, or, shooter is like the drunk at a bar who likes to fight and doesn't care how bad he gets his ass kicked, he just wants to fight. And he'll say whatever it takes to arouse as much anger as possible.

I thought Dalebeck was right, so I'm wrong, too!

I had an English prof. my freshman year who didn't like how I spelled "naivete." (Talk about an ironic word to dicker over with a prof!) When I was originally writing the paper, I looked it up and picked one of the "acceptable" spellings according to Webster's. I argued that the fact that I went to the trouble of finding a version Webster's listed as "acceptable" should have put me in the clear, but she didn't see it that way. She told me Webster's was "wrong."