would one bother answering *any* question posed by Brent Bozell?

Brent Bozell's just jealous. He can't find anybody at all who wants to get in bed with him.

This is an occupation. A very messy, deadly one with no end in sight. The Democrats in Congress are going to roll over again like the cheap hookers they are. Pelosi has been AWOL-there is no leadership, there is only triangulation and meanwhile they can't seem to understand why the country (not just the base) are disgusted with them.

So far the Democratic Congress is all hat and no cattle. And the imbecilic cowboy keeps on swaggerin'.

At least you aren't foot nudging in restrooms.

You are in bed with MoveOn. In the sense that you both are part of the chattering class, you both are actually part of the problem.

Do you really think you are adding anything of value by countering the right-wing's point of view?

Glad you're getting your regular diet of Brittany Spears' type moments, though.

Whoopee! Joan/Salon/Liberal Edge is on mainstream media!!!

A victory for all, right? Yea, except for the Iraqis.

Seems like even the "liberals" have forgotten about the little people. Maybe being overscheduled really is a problem. Stick to Salon, Joan. Be a "Journalist", or all you guys supposed to be "Celebrities" too?

At least, we should be.

A badge of honor - wear it proudly! Even Ed Schultz got on the bus on Tuesday.

I'm not sure about "war supporters." Most of the right wing do not really support the war, or the strategy, or understand the implications, or even care how it turns out.

It's just an oppurtunity to pretend they are more patriotic than everyone else. They latch on to that like a tick on a hound and won't let go.

Let Me see if I've got this right? Calling Petraeus--Betray Us--is being characterized as the harshest criticism of this War so far. Assuming I am correct, My question to you Joan is this--if this is the best Move On can do why would you want to get in bed with these SISSIES?????????

The right-wing's attack on MoveOn is ridiculous. General Petreaus is a big boy and he has faced far more critisism and danger than Move-On's full page ad. The Democrats answer to the idiotic Republican amendment should be that Petreaus can take care of himself and we embrace freedom of the press and the right of free expression.

What really concerns me is that Joan Walsh seems to be in bed with Camille Paglia. I've been trying to figure out why that phony dodo brained wretch is writing for Salon, but to no avail.

Moving past my jealousy of MoveOn... I have mixed feelings about the Betrayus thing. It seemed like blog posting snark and therefore somehow unworthy. On the other hand, it certainly got a lot of attention that it might not have otherwise received. It gave the rightwingers a target, but I'm not sure that's something they want to draw attention to anymore. Many people may be moving to where MoveOn is and the demonizing wearing thin. Besides, I'm sure whoever Brent's in bed with is a lot kinkier than MoveOn. He is a Republican. Right?

You can't even trust when these conservative clowns say we won. We won the cold war. Today Putin is dissolving the government and Russia is testing the "dad of all bombs."

Several weeks ago, you guys pointed to an LA Times article which claimed that the "Petraeus Report...would actually be written by the White House...."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pullback15aug15,0,4840766.st

ory?page=2&coll=la-home-center

Has anyone asked Petraeus about this? Or has it since been discredited?

maybe Camille Paglia's.

With Iraq and terror. "Win" is so fuzzy and undefinable it's practically eliminated. Now it's an endless striving for victory.

Brent Bozell is a nutbag. How incredibly uptight this priggish little man can be! Just what the world needs, a smug conservative slapping everyone on the wrists and tsk-tsking people. It doesn't seem a person who uses the word shame so often would be useful to anyone.

After all, as Glenn Greenwald has pointed out many times, Gen. Petraeus has proved to be an unreliable, overoptimistic predictor of events in Iraq. Moreover, he seems to have toadied up to the Bush political line, unlike some of his predecessors who were removed for saying things that Bush didn't like. Seems to me that he's earned MoveOn's appellation.

Besides, Joan, what's a little rabble rousing by liberals in the face of years and years of swiftboating attacks by conservatives?

Brent should stop beating around the dubya, er bush, and just ask Joan out and get it over with. All she can do is say no, Brent.

But I guess that's the way the Republicans want it. Perhaps in their extreme psychic distress, they are reverting to adolescence.

I'm not joking. A failed war is serious business. These people don't seem to be able to handle their emotions like adults.

It's absolutely stupid to argue who is in bed with whom.

Peple are dying! Forget about the beds and concentrate on the dying.

Republicans should give Joan more credit for her support of their OTHER failed war. If Joan is in bed with anyone, it's the DEA.

"I don't expect the Democrats will have the Republican votes to restrict war funding, but I'd love to be wrong."

===============================================================

Joan, the Democrats had the votes to restrict war funding last Spring, and they do now. Please stop repeating the Democrats' excuses for the whiny, sniveling, gutless Democratic leadership.

You may recall that Congress actually PASSED a war funding bill with restrictions and timetables last spring. Bush vetoed it. There weren't enoug votes to overcome the veto--THAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MATTER!

Had the Democrats simply showed some conviction, some leadership, and some loyalty to the constituents that they (supposedly) represent, they'd have simply said to Bush--"You do not get the funding without these restrictions and timetables." Polls at the time said 65% of the voters backed the Democrats in this standoff. Meanwhile, Bush, a lame-duck President, was teetering at around a 28% approval rating.

And then THE DEMOCRATS CAVED. The Democratic leadership gave Bush everything he asked for. Funding. No timetables. No restrictions. Six months. And Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Rahm Emanuel tried to spin this into a Democratic "victory."

You may recall that you referred to it as a "cave-in" at the time, and said you'd be "furious" at those trying to portray it as a "victory" if you had a child in Iraq. (See your blog of May 23, 2007).

Consequently, we have, six months later, this Kabuki theater presented by Crocker and Petraeus. And the spectacle of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid wringing their hands and once again lamenting that they don't have a veto-proof majority. (See Tim Grieve's War Room posts today).

But while it would be lovely to have veto-proof majorities, they are not necessary--the Democrats can pass the same kind of bill that they passed in the Spring, complete with timetables, benchmarks, and the like. IF THEY ACTUALLY HAD THE GUTS, THEY COULD STICK TO IT! And then Bush would get no funding for the Iraq fiasco without accepting real, meaningful, and measurable benchmarks and timetables.

THE VOTES ARE THERE. PERIOD.

Finally, as far as the canard that the Democrats would be viewed by voters negatively as de-funding the troops if they did not pass Bush's idea of what a funding bill should look like (a blank check and unlimited time)--let's all put an end to that now.

Last Spring, the Democrats provided funding for the troops in the prior funding bill--with benchmarks/timelines--some semblance of reporting and responsibility. IT WAS BUSH WHO DE-FUNDED THE TROOPS WITH THE VETO, because he wanted a blank check and no accountability. The spineless Democrats then caved and gave him exactly what he wanted all along--they abandoned their Congressional oversight responsibilities.

And the Democrats expect, as a consequence, that the voters will award them in 2008 with a veto-proof majority in Congress, and the Presidency? Why?