'...Today, on its "Post-Partisan" Opinins page ...'

I think you meant "...Opinions..."

Keep up the yeoman's work, Glenn. I think I am starting to see some cracks in the castle walls.

Just ponder the levels of delusion and self-pity necessary to believe that.

I would rather stand back and gaze at the mountain of deceit and dishonesty built by a crew that cannot always be so stupid as to be unaware of their lies.

The self-claimed victimhood of tyrants, bullies, and authoritarians/abusers is such an interesting subject. It serves them in several ways:

It's a partner of narcissism in that it inflates their sense of importance and entitlement.

It's a masterful head game in that it turns the tables on those they abuse and sends reality reeling, as they paint themselves as victims of their victims.

It's a great way to offload responsibility and blame for anything they do. "Maybe Daddy wouldn't drink/beat/yell if only you would/wouldn't _________." "I only do it because you ________. It's your fault and I'm the victim here."

It's a gateway to depriving victims of anything they want to deprive them of. "Because you allow alcohol in your house, I and others drink. Therefore you must give up alcohol."

A recent episode of the cable series Burn Notice mentioned this trait of abusive tyrants -- this self pitying infantile victim lurking below the surface of the most ruthless and powerful bullies. One of the lead characters seduced a kingpin by talking to him in pitying, babying tones.

They are babies. Dangerous, ruthless babies capable of resentful retaliation, or explosive, destructive, and even deadly tantrums when deprived of something they feel entitled to -- like complete and total power, for example.

Like I said, it's an interesting subject.

or just know that, like the phrase "liberal media" he can get a lot of mileage and maintain the reframe this storyline carries by constantly repeating it, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence you point out? Just ponder the title of Campbell Brown's show, "No Bias, No Bull" which, in attempting to be provocative and achieve ratings in the age of Beck, inadvertently continues the false "liberal media" storyline that's helped the right for so long, throwing her colleagues under the buss in an attempt to stand out.

So called conservatives like Krauthammer (what a name!) have not only learned to whine, they've learned that if you whine about the same subject long enough, you create a false meme that the media reacts to and that a substantial segment of the population internalizes as truth.

Thus, when I meet my brother this weekend and point out the specific evidence you cite, he'll counter with Fox News-created generalizations such as "liberal bias" and "socialism" during a week in which insurance company contributions doom the public option and Froomkin is shown the door while the author of "The Party of Death" gets unquestioned editorial space in the paper that uncovered watergate.

The empire strikes back not through rational debate (which, as you've shown, fails) but by falsely framing the issues around "socialized medicine," and "media bias." They've learned that whining about socialism keeps corporatism alive.

He may not be a neocon, but he'll always be there for them.

1. What Krauthammer has in mind is probably big TV stations, not necessarily newspapers. And in this case he is right in the sense that the other big TV stations are much more to the left than Fox News.

2. If he doesn't mean TV stations specifically but media in general then he his aim is probably not to give an accurate description of how it looks but to create/support the illusion of a heavily left-leaning media to further undermine liberal media and advance right-wing media. Here he is relying on the common sense fairness belief that there should be a balance of left and right in the media landscape.

So, as I see it, Greenwald is putting down straw mans in his post.

Having Beck on to pimp his book had to be a new low. He shut the chat down after only nine questions, the assumption being those were the only ones at all favorable to his BS.

All these clowns would be dead of heart attacks.

I always thought of Ludlum's fictional universe as, well, purely fictional. All those secret cabals wielding near omnipotent power - well, as omnipotent as any human organization can be imagined to be - are literary devices.

These days, I'm not so sure. For instance, there is no way to explain the WaPo as a response to market forces. (On the other hand, maybe it is angling to be acquired by Rupert Murdoch?)

Over on turcopolier, retd Col W. Patrick Lang wants the US to intervene in Iran to get a government we can negotiate with. We are faced with a difficult moral choice, he believes. If we do nothing, then we will be inevitably led to war by the Israeli lobby, the neocons and the mainstream media, and the reasonable among us will not be able to stop it. So interference is the greater kindness, in the long run, to the Iranian people.

The only way this can be true, IMO, is again, the hidden powers, that can override reason in the quest for their obscure goals.

Then look at Obama himself. Are his about-faces the normal behavior of the politician; or are there unseen forces that have him too in their grip?

Theis sself-styled "Media Critic" is married to high-ranking Republican operative Sheri Anis, who among toehr things is responsble for turning a fmore bodybuilding with a waning action movie career into the Governor of California. More should be done to expose Howie for the lying shill that he is. Get to it Glenn!

One could say that Krauthammer's self-absorbed lament - like that of his right-wing pundit brethren - is just more of the tried and true cynical ploy of whining incessantly about the oppressive "liberal media" to cow media figures into self-consciously moving right.

On the other hand, the supposed liberal bent of the media having been amply and daily disproved, some of these complaints could be genuine - i.e., the genuine product of a delusional persecution complex. This illusion of ideological oppression is enabled, I can only guess, by the Manichean, absolutist mindset itself. To a closed and inflexible mind that cannot tolerate even the mildest deviation from its orthodoxy, the existence of even a smattering of mild, meek, and otherwise hedged "liberal" voices seems an existential threat. The very fact that the powers-that-be tolerate the presence of these barely liberal perspectives is, to the underdeveloped psychological front lines of the absolutist conservative thinker, itself evidence of the "oppression" of the conservative's abundantly represented ideology.