The segement that follows makes the announcer's lame defence even more amusing "Get all the news you can on Fox News, and now, a gratituous segment with hot chicks in short skirts!"

You really can't satirize them.

The DOJ "then came back and admitted that they were not in a position to deny any of the allegations [about the Siegelman case], so they went with 'no comment.'" I don't understand this. If DOJ hacks have been so corrupt that they would railroad a man (and I have no doubt that have been exactly that corrupt), why the "no comment" here? Isn't that an admission that they pressed a case that had no merit? What are the implications of this "no comment"? It seems to me that if the DOJ is deeply corrupt, there would have been no problem with continuing to obfuscate and blow smoke and pretend that there was a "there" there but that most people are too ill-versed in The Law to understand the subtleties. What gives?

The Bush administration said on Saturday U.S. telecommunications companies have agreed to cooperate "for the time being" with spy agencies' wiretaps, despite an ongoing battle between the White House and Congress over new terrorism surveillance legislation.

The Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement saying wiretaps will resume under the current law "at least for now."

"Although our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the ongoing uncertainty and have indicated they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists," the statement said.

On Friday U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell said telecommunications firms have been reluctant to cooperate with new wiretaps since six-month temporary legislation expired last weekend. As a result, they told Congress, spy agencies have missed intelligence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2229053420080224

I'm going to throw caution to the wind for a change and call this a huge victory.

Well, what a nasty surprise for our coterie of shooters! The natural human capacity for antithesis is finding outlets after all. Chaos! Concern! A redoubling of sneers! Now's no time for the propagandists to rest on their laurels.

I do hope that the various Foundations for American Fear and Excess can afford overtime.

especially amusing because after the young man shocks (shocks!) with his accusation that the station is a "festival of ignorance" and that there are a million dead in Iraq, they segue to an inane Star Trek piece with short-outfitted young women who are to meet Captain Kirk.

The whole thing is emblematic of everything that is wrong with our news outlets, not just Fox -- tho it is by far the worst.

Are their no more missing white girls in Aruba or runaway brides to transfix the nation?

Now enough Obamamaniacs will switch. Say hello to President John McCain and his running mate Karl Rove.

All insurgents are domestic to the country they are from. That's why we call them insurgents, otherwise we'd call them "foreign fighters".

Obama plans on taking the government away from those currently in charge, because he believes they are doing his country harm. This is similar to what goes through the mind of an insurgent; the difference is that an insurgent uses violence to achieve his aims.

What do you suppose we should call a person who takes action make a better government? "Patriot" perhaps?

I love this sort of formulation. A vapid reporter writes about some possible public opinion and in so doing enables and enforces that opinion. Democrats may be seen as weak on terror!

There is virtually no news value in writing about what "may" (or may not) happen, especially when what may happen is not any sort of physical event but merely a change in public opinion. This sort of story is a prime example of how the news media makes news rather than reporting it. The only reason most normal people not associated with crazed right-wingers may question Obama's patriotism is pieces like this instructing them to do so.

Isn't it? That probably encompasses 800 million people.

And no matter the accuracy of what that kid said, and the hilariously feeble reply by the Fox hacks notwithstanding, the kid looked like the proverbial Dirty F*cking Hippie. They need normal looking people to go on there and say the exact same sorts of things. In fact, they need normal looking people to say those sorts of things everywhere, not just on Fox.

Q: Are the "Oscars" on tonight?

I vaguely recall hearing how "60 Minutes" has seemingly deliberately scheduled some blockbuster story at a time when the fewest number of people were likely to see it. In what passes for my recollection, I remember it as being Sibel Edmond's related, but it might be the Sigelman tale...

Does this person look "normal" to you?

http://tinyurl.com/2r6gaa

Glenn, you miss the whole point on the article about Obama on msnbc. The point is not whether the charges are true or not, (THEY ARE NOT) but how the Republican smear machine and their surrogates are going to attack Obama in the general election. And if recent history is any gauge, sadly it most likely will work.

Personally I am surprised that msnbc has printed this article about their darling Obama at all since they have spent most all of the primary season in misogynist sexist attacks against Hillary. Obama's supporters have been acting like an ostrich and have buried their heads in the sand ignoring Obama's weaknesses that the R's will exploit with fined tuned precision.

Obama's legions have also ignored the fact that one of the MSM's favorite games is build some one up and then tear them down. It was only a matter of time before they turned on Obama. Figure into the mix that McCain is a true darling of the MSM + Nader in the mix now and the Dems strongly face another loss in November. UNFORTUNATELY.