In sum, six out of 10 Americans favor a setting of a date certain right not for withdrawal of the troops

Uh, no. They will not. Any concession to a policy of correcting bullshit in the National Review would obviously quickly consume the publication. Indeed, bullshit is its raison d'etre.

...like I use oxygen.

Early on in the Plame matter he insisted it was "common knowledge" that Plame was not "Covert". In the same article he claimed that the Niger sale of Uranium was known fact...something we all now know was based upon a crude forgery.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

... that Right-Wing-Authoritarians are impervious to facts. That is part of what makes them RWAs. But we still ought to try and call them on it as much as possible. Leave them with nothing but their RWA status, stripped naked of all the b.s. like what's in May's column, so they know they are clinging only to ideology. That's a good goal, at least, even if it is an impossible one.

Dear Ms Lopez,

I would like to point out that in Cliff May's piece in the "Corner" yesterday he made the statement that there was not a shred of evidence that the American public wishes for our military forces to withdraw from Iraq.

This statement by Mr May is factually incorrect. As you can see below, the latest Pew poll shows that six in ten Americans are in favor of setting a firm date for withdrawing US forces from Iraq.

It would be a sign of journalistic integrity if your publication were to issue a correction or retraction of this error.

Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter.

Best Regards,

Jonathan

But we still ought to try and call them on it as much as possible.

That they deny reality is not news, as you point out. But I just think that if you force them in super-clear cases to acknowledge their factual error - just by appealing to the basic journalistic standards to which they claim fidelity - it can go a long way to precluding its use and forcing them to resort to others ("even National Review was forced to admit that most Americans actually favor a withdrawal from Iraq, and are not merely frustrated with the 'lack of progress' in the war").

I wish people would stop referring to this thing as a "war." That dignifies it and confuses things. It is an "occupation."

On March 18 I participated in a small anti-war demonstration in a public park bordering a two-lane state highway running through a small town in a rural county. We held up our signs so those in passing cars could see them. Mine said "We need a smarter "decider"/Impeach Bush/Cheney" on one side and "Resist Globalist Hegemony" on the other. During the course of two hours in the afternoon, several hundred cars passed by. About a quarter of them honked or cheered and gave us "thumbs up". I counted only three "f... yous" with accompanying "birds".

Curiously, the letters to the editor column in the local paper was dominated by outraged responses to a post-deomstration letter insisting that adolescents at the demonstration had no right to express their political views, especially if they differed from the President's. The prompt and eloquent quashing of crude authoritarianism spoke of the frustration our community feels with the whole Bush program.

Well, my point is that the political "norm" in our area is more aligned with the views of Feingold and Kucinich than with Hillary Clinton and certainly not with the neocons. From all sides I am hearing "worst President in history..." and "impeach now".

Mr. Greenwald, Don’t you know that being a conservative means never having to admit being wrong? Ron

Enough said.

Said the very same thing yesterday on Press the Meat.

Close your eyes, click your heels together three times, and it'll all work out right as rain. Or something.

. . . listed as an "advisor" to Clifford D. May's organization?
http://defenddemocracy.org/biographies/biographies.htm

I believe this is his e-mail address: cliff@defenddemocracy.org

Your photo of the polling on the surge is deceptive. Sure, if you combine the "have no effect" and "make things worse" buckets, you get a majority. On the other hand, if you combine the "make things better" and "have no effect" bucket, you get a larger majority. The data support both of these statements:

1. A majority of Americans believes the surge will not improve the situation.

2. A majority of Americans believes the surge will not make the situation any worse.

Orrin Hatch

Said the very same thing yesterday on Press the Meat.

I just checked the transcript. I only see them talking about Gonzales. Did he say it somewhere else, or perhaps it was someone else who said it?

Obama says that if Bush vetoes the fund & withdraw bill, that the Senate will cave on withdrawal date:

www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070401-1013-obama-interview.html

The people want to withdraw, the troops (when kept safely away from visiting Republicans) want to withdraw, the Iraqi people want us to withdraw. The President demanded that Congress not include the withdrawal in the spending bill. Don't back down.

Bruce is of course correct. It's an occupation, not a war. We are staying to stay. Nothing more.

Here's another example of how we've permitted the bush admin. to occupy the terminological turf. There are references everyday to "3200 Americans have died in Iraq" or "3200 troops have died in Iraq." Actually, more than 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq while serving in the war/occupation. For some reason the media has decided that the approximately 800 private contractors who are performing roles in Iraq that have historically been performed by the troops do not merit martyred hero status; in fact, they don't merit mention at all. To say "3200 Americans have died in the war" is simply incorrect. To say "3200 American TROOPS have died in the war" is to draw a very curious distinction between the gun totin' Marine grunt and the gun totin' Blackwater contractor.

The truth is that more than 4,000 Americans have died while serving in the three week war and the ensuing four year occupation of Iraq.