Were there really any democrats at this meeting?

I suggest you do what Josh Marshall does and ask readers to call their democratic congress people and senators to ask them if they attended this meeting with Petraeus. Of course, Leiberman doesn't count as a democrat.

This deserves clarification by Mitchell. Taken as presented means that roughly 400 American's will have died in vain (5 months times 80 killed per month) where the sole purpose is one last chance for Bush to save face before pulling the plug. Are they really this sick? Let them talk to the loved one's of those killed and maimed for life. Mitchell either needs to retract this statement or start naming names so we know who these sick bastards are.

I've had no respect for her as a reporter since the time she all but accused Gary Condit's office staff of about half a dozen of conspiracy in murder by covering up for him. It was disgraceful yellow journalism, and unbelievable.

The only two parties Bush recognizes are the Republican Party and the Lieberman for Lieberman Party. That's what is meant by "both parties", I'm sure.

The important part about this story is that the GOP is willing to break with the President in five months or so. There is no way progress will be made in Iraq. There are not enough troops. By Labor Day, perhaps enough Republicans will side with the Democrats to overturn any possible veto.

Why are you apologizing? You reported what Andrea Mitchell said on Hardball.

Did she or did she not say that Petraeus had met with Republican senators exclusively?

If she did, and then corrected herself later on, then she's the one who needs to fess up to her error.

This is the problem with the media covering the media. What are the rules here? If you cover the media and the stories the media report, are you responsible, then, for fact-checking the stories as well?

Should you have called up your sources to verify Andrea's story before you published your account?

What are the rules?

Having read a number of accounts of the Don Imus affair, I find that most of them fail to take into account the dismal record of this fake cowboy who, well paid indeed for his shock "value" for the yokels who tune in, is a frequently demonstrated bigot, a careless bag of foul air, a mumbling, irresponsible blunderer whose opinions are hardly worth the wind they waste. This "nappy headed ho" business is hardly the first instance of stupid, bigoted, offensive, or inflammatory bilge from this ego bloated idiot, so why do his employers keep him "on the air" ? The answer is obvious. MONEY. Lots of it. He is a "big draw" for a medium that has degraded itself appealing the the bottom feeders in our society - - all for market share and advertisers who care only for the size of the audience and the "exposure" it affords, no matter how putrid. No one seems to care what this kind of broadcasted excrement has in lowering the tenor of discussion on TV and radio, already heading into a permanent place in the cesspool of "free speech". Print and TV media have become largely an embarassment. It may well be too late to "reform" the "mainstream" media. Real news, valid opinion, and honest-to-goodness facts are found only on CAREFULLY SELECTED 'net sites (salon.com, for example). The rest, including most of the insane baloney on the internet, is silly, transparent CRAP to anyone with a shred of intelligence and an ability to engage critical judgement. I am sorry to read that Tom Oliphant excuses Imus' little slip of the tongue. My opinion of Oliphant as a reliable commentator has been lowered considerably. Howard Stern's leering, breast obsessive, adolescent, BORING sex "discussions" have finally been shoved off TV and relegated to schlock radio, where at least it is confined to some extent. That's where the likes of Imus and his even more bigoted jerk McGuirk producer belong.