That claim you say she made, which she did sort of make, is not based on THE FACTS AS EVIDENCED BY THE POLLS. She has no poll to base that on, as no poll we are aware of has asked that question.

Agreed, but faulting Liasson for asserting on a political opinion show an opinion neither directly supported nor contradicted by polling data (i.e., an opinion on a question of exactly the sort that is open to opining) seems a far less serious charge than the claim that she asserted an opinion directly and unequivocally contradicted by the polling data.

This isn't what she said on 7/2:

LIASSON: I think over time, if the violence goes down—

HUME: It has gone down.

LIASSON: Yes, and if it continues to that will change people's opinions.

The majority of the American people still think the war was a mistake. What they're divided on is what to do now, and whether they think the progress is tenuous enough that we have to stay there to maintain it.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,375104,00.html

Oligarchy is the real American form of government, and we are all just pretending its a constitutional republic. I do think though, that its not quite so sewn-up as all that. An answer to why we do this if it doesn't matter is that it does matter. We hone our craft and our arguments on sites like Salon and go out into the world and actually talk to people about this stuff. We learn and debate issues in a healthy forum with the hope that it can actually change things, even if the things it changes are little. A billion little changes can make a whole lot of change. And I'm not talking pennies here.

It also helps us to stay sane in a world that resembles the matrix more and more every day.

After all it's "Mara Lia[r]]sson"

The difference is Glenn offers facts. Something which you seem to avoid/ignore.-- druidbros

Silly me, I thought that repeatedly calling someone a criminal required a trial. So essentially, either he or I could call anyone a criminal, even you?

As for facts, Glenn has stated multiple times that he doesn't even know what was done re: warrantless wiretapping. So by his own admission he's talking out of his butt, and slurring anyone within reach.

Meanwhile, the only thing that is factual and undisputed, is that all such labeling of Bush and Co. is opinion, and should be represented as such. At least that's what serious people would do.

You said: "Fact is, Iraq is off the front page. Most Americans don't think about it either way."

You're not pushing something?

Sounds like a ripe, airy talking point to me!

I also found the "overlap" interesting.

With respect to your reference to Jimmy Carter, let's not forget the so-called "Carter Doctrine" - a precursor to (and, presumably, an inspiration for) the Bush Doctrine. Not to mention another reason why non-Americans find it so difficult to tell your politicians apart, as I often see Carter referred to as being the antithesis of GWB, but when it came to, ah, protecting American interests in the middle east, I fail to see any functional difference in underlying approach. I'd suggest that what Bush has done is to have brought the Carter Doctrine to life, except that, in this case, the United States is the "outside force". It's all so confusing...

For example, Chomsky would probably say that Beltway elites are controlled by corporate interests. If that were Glenn's position, than it isn't clear why we spend so much time on this blog worrying about crafting impeccable arguments and referring to the Constitution.

The problem with your formulation is that there is no monolithic "they," and therefore, there's no One Unifying Theory about why "they" do what they do. There are hundreds and hundreds of them, all motivated by different things and mixed drives.

The point of "impeccable arguments and referring to the Constitution" isn't to convince "them" to change their minds. It's to figure out how to threaten the one thing virtually all of them care about regardless of Ultimate Motives -- their ability to remain in office and be returned to power -- in order to induce behavioral change.

"These assholes and their ancestors have been killing/wanting to kill each other for over a thousand years. The difference at this point is that our military people are standing in their way."

Rufus, I hope you were being sarcastic when you said this was a good point. This, in fact, is exactly how the US has wound up getting involved in stupid wars for the past forty years--not understanding itself, or the world. If there have been any 'assholes' killing/wanting to kill each other for thousands of years, it has in fact been Europeans. Their lust for the activity killed hundreds of millions of people just this century alone, in wars which were strictly based on ancient hatreds against each other! Having brought themselves to the point of extinction, they have recently tried to turn that narrative into one that only includes the darker people of the world. Funnily enough they've also removed their own virulent and murderous history of anti-semtism and pogrom to Arabs, who are now somehow also made to bear the moral weight of the holocaust.

And guess what, they've used it as a way to have more wars!

Regarding the update: We need a term that describes the kind of counter-factual statements Liasson makes that doesn't get into the divining of intentions that "lying" does.

Because I've spent the last 20 years (since Iran-Contra, at least) being told that I'm supposed to figure out whether someone knew they were saying something untrue. Somehow I am supposed to get that straight, and until I do we cannot possibly talk about the fact that someone said something that was blatantly and demonstrably false.

I'm really sick of that.

good ppint omooex. I stand corrected. :)

What is the alternative? Police the world?

A wise man once said "What do I get for me pain".

i hear you. this conflict has waged for THOUSANDS of years, though. take that into account. The euro's don't go that deep. A hundred or hundreds, tops.

We need the u.n.. We need gloabal unity. I'm all for "One world One people". One day when teh world is ready. The internet is the key. but is the world with us or against us now? A one world new world order is happening, imo. nobody can stop that now. The question is which world will it be. The corporate slavery gop model. Class warfare forever. Or "all power to the people"?

A another wise man once said in a free society no man us under another man. Both the worker and the owner operate in a mutual benifet. Porfiting of each other. Currently if you won't work for pennies they will find someone that will. Or bring in people from other countires used to less, so their can subjegate them. Slavery. I'm for breaking all barreiers. I'm for leading all the slaves out of the cave. What they CHOOSE when they are free is up to humanity. But the choice is what matters. What choice do we courrently have? Maybe over your head. One thing has nothing to do with the other, but I hear you. And agree to a point. :)