Oh Come on - you are appeasers. Our Murrow moment?, for fu** sake get some perspective. Rummy is saying there are many of you who want to bury your heads in the sand and ignore the problem. You say mistakes were made in Iraq. Yes, we arent being brutal enough. In the Civil War we fully torched Atlanta. In Dresden we killed every living thing with our firebombs, we firebombed Tokyo, killing 100K, then the automic bombs. See, thats how you fight to win. I would like the Demos who complain about all the Iraq mistakes to argue that the strategy has been wrong. I mean why is the Sunni triangle allowed to exist? We should have just brought some f-16s in low with incindiary bombs and flattened everything. We will not back these Muslims off, they are the new Hitler, with nukes. I wouldnt be scared of them, except, they have a lot of Saudi oil money to buy suitcase nukes and missiles from their Chechen bretheren and Pakistanis. Personally, I would never live in NYC or Washington DC, because those cities are the walking dead, they will be nuked by the Muslims, sooner than later. Bin Laden has stated, in 1997!, that he had 70 nukes under his control and he will create an American Hiroshima in our 10 largest cities. Thats reality, Olbermann lives in a dream world.

We will not back these Muslims off, they are the new Hitler, with nukes.

wow Bill its clear that you dont like muslims. Lets not forget that this so called muslim "facists" are not the majority of muslims but rather a small group of them. Bin Laden last time I heard has been banned from many muslim nations and represents the radical branch of Islam. Just as there radical christain groups that aim to hate and hurt those who are not white christians. The main difference is that Bin Laden is a terroist genius while the white christians use other methods.

they will be nuked by the Muslims

Bill you just seem to hate all muslims. I know a few muslims and here is what I've learned from them. First arabic is a realy cool language I dont speak it but from hearing it and seeing it written I have come to that conclusion. Secondaly muslims are just like us expect they have a different religion. Its so sad that because of some radical groups that people istantly assoicaite muslim with killer or worse words. Last I've heard there have also been cases of bombings in America that have been commited by white Americans. How about you stop with this "muslims are out to kill us" crap Bill and have an open mind toward other religions.

Just a 17 year old who believes that muslims are not all bad people

Bill,

If you want to know about Saudi oil money, ask James Baker and his Carlyle Group.

I am fully aware of the dangers, I said that I dont like the military strategy in Iraq. Hussein was in on the 93 WTC attack, there were Ansar AL-Islam terrorist training camps in Northern Iraq, pre-invasion. On the initial run to Baghdad, my nephew passed through 3 separate training camps where info on Al'Qaeda was dispersed to Iraqi trainees. One of the Iraqi troop encampments had a huge mural of the planes hitting the towers, still think Hussein wasnt taking credit? He is a gangster, you dont shoot a gangster in the foot a la 1991 and leave him be.
The real problem, now is our one-sided support of Israel and the crazies awash in oil dollars with loose nukes floating around.

On 9/11, that afternoon, if I had been in charge, the Saudi oil fields would have been turned to glass, so GW is also an appeaser in relation to the Saudis.

Bill,

You racist idiot twit, there is only one Muslim nation with Nukes, you might have heard of them, Bush's good friends and allies Pakistan?

Bill,

And if we attacked Saudi Arabia, what would Iran have done to Israel shortly therafter? What woud Iran have done to every American oil tanker in the Gulf? You don't think they have a plan for that? I would not bank on them being as incompetent and clueless as Rummy.

Speaking of which, what would a shut down of the giant Saudi fields do to oil prices? You think $100/barrel is bad? Try 10x that. Try people staying home from work and school because gas is simply unavailable. Shipments of food not getting to any grocery store by truck anywhere in the United States...for even 5 days. What do you think would happen then?

Yes Bill - bomb everyone to hell and damn the consequences. Good thinking.

Lets not get side tracked here by Bill.

The point is the Bush administrations treatment of dissent and dissenters and its willingness to unfairly and viciously attack and undermine dissenting opinions and bury, blur and tar inconvienient facts.

The point is that personal attacks and villification or political opponents is a Bush/Rove/Republican trademark and is destroying our civil discourse and undermining free speech, the cornerstone of American Democracy.

The point is that this administation and its power brokers represent a new McArthyism. A cynical egotistical strategy, employing fascist, self righteous tactics, whose only goal is continued empowerment of what a small group of powerbrokers (both political and economic)see as if not their birthright, then their right as Darwinistic Alpha males in our society.

Bill, the point isn't just Iraq. Its about how we discuss and deal with the Katrina recovery, Halliburton, the Estate tax, Education support, the transfer of wealth from the working class to the capitalist class, Iraq, Afghanistan, Our petroleum based economy and the transitions that we face, health care, fair taxation, the budget deficit and many other policies in which the current power brokers are out of step with the majority of American people. Its about those powerbrokers using stem cell research, abortion, prayer in school and particularly the struggle against terror to divide our country in order to conquer our democracy.

Mr. Harris:

The point is your socialist ideas are suffering a slow death and you can't face reality. All of your pointless points will not mean anything when you are dead at the hands of a terrorist. Learn to think logically without emotion, and try not to be a hypocrite. Bill is right. One more thing: GO JEWS, GO.

Steven, Republicans come in all stripes, just like Democrats. I am a humanitarian, I try to treat others as I would have them treat me and I do not advocate dropping nuclear bombs on anyone. Sweeping generalizations aren't any more valid in politics than they are in discussing race, religion or anything else. I post on this site but I don't think I'm a troll. I may not agree, but I do value and listen to the opinions of everyone. I read and post on Republican sites also, and I don't see much difference between the vitriol on either side.

Call 'em trolls if you like, but I rather enjoy the debate. Right- and left-eing blogs that remain exclusively so are always reduced to echo chambers where no new insights are gleaned.

That said, I watched Good night, and Good Luck last night for the first time. I found the movie very interesting. I don't really believe that KO's bit is the same though. Rummy's just playing defense. He's not investigating people or incarcerating people, so calling KO courageous is a bit demeaning to Murrow's legacy, dontcha think?

We are in a helluva mess and I'm as unsure as to how we extricate ourselves from this mess as I have ever thought myself to be. I've often been wrong, but seldom in doubt as to what I thought would happen. Here, I'm completely clueless, as I think many of us feel.

I would wager that most of us opposed going into Iraq and would like to see us out of there as soon as possible, but the issue isn't Iraq, IMHO, anymore, it's Iran. It's almost a side note, our presence in Iraq. Anyone have any ideas as to what you would do in the chimp's shoes now? It's all FUBAR over there and there's no backing down, as I see it. We're in a face-saving game at this point, against an enemy that is looking for any sign of weakness. That enemy isn't Islam per se, but it's radicalized followers who have control of some very big forces (Hamas, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Iran, the Iraqi insurgency, Syria, to name a few).

It WOULD be nice if the non-radicalized leaders of Islam would condemn and reject the radicalized factions, but that has never happened. How do we effect that event? How do we get the UN to treat Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and recognize its unethical (for a battle standpoint) behavior of hiding among civilians to elicit an uproar when they are attacked and civilians die?

These are the questions I want answers to and a discussion around. Keith Olbermann is no Edward R. Murrow. Rummy is no McCarthy (just as vocal, but far less menacing).

they are the new Hitler, with nukes.

I think this misreads both history and the current situation. Nuclear weapons are extremely valuable, nobody is giving them away or selling them. Even if "they" had a nuclear weapon, "they" would have a very hard time delivering it to New York or Washington. And that is presuming that "they" would want to take their only nuclear weapon and set it off against the United States instead of Israel or the Saudi's or some other enemy. And if they did, the United States would still survive.

Its pure hysteria. You might as well worry about the asteroids from space hitting us - they are far more deadly. Or worry about our provoking a conflict with some country that does have nuclear weapons which is far more likely. Like Iran. Or North Korea.

And what does that have to do with our soldiers in Iraq? Nothing.

That said. I think the video is overblown and reveals the level of hysteria on the other side of the issue. The proper response to Rumsfeld is to laugh. That is what one does to naked people preening about their new clothes. And laugh again the next day when George Bush says he doesn't want his policies to become a partisan political debate. These guys are truly shameless.

Olberman makes a powerful presentation and great TV, it really pulls at people's strings. But I doubt we are in danger of a "new fascism". Hitler did not just attack his critics verbally, he had them killed and imprisoned. And McCarthy created a climate of fear that permeated not only the chattering class, but people in all walks of life who had been involved in politics or union organizing during the 30's or after the war. A sizeable group at that time. Curtis Lemay is best remembered as the model for Doctor Strangelove.

Moreover, I think he simply misstated Chamberlain's problem. There were a lot of people in that conservative government who supported a resurgent Germany as a bulwark against communism. Their mistake was seeing Hitler as an ally who could be managed. Of course once the war started Churchill carefully avoided that inconvenient reality and portrayed the problem as the Labor party's pacifism which, while real, played a small part in the governing Conservative Party's deliberations.

Bush is hypocritical in his foreign policy. He sends $millions to Uzbekistan, a country that routinely tortures and kills its own citizens, not to mention the prisoners we send there surrepticiously.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/05/18_uzbekistan.html

Well, unfortunately Ross, Ole Bin Laden has said in 97 that he has Suitcase nukes and soviet-scientists on his staff to maintain them. He has stated that he will use them against the 10 largest US cities with the highest Jewish population. He further stated that the US Southern and No. borders are unguarded and he has brought them in. Read his writings, all of this is in there they are scary with a capital S. Al-Qaida has smuggled tactical nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S. across the Mexican border and is planning to launch a major terrorist attack using a combination of nukes and dirty nukes. The book by Paul Williams detailed this.
A major theory in DC is that Bush has put the arab powers on notice that if any nukes were detonated, that all Islamic holy sites would be nuked. I think that we need to make the same threat to Iran and N. Korea.

The Bills of this country deeply disturb me. They don't see the manipulation by the current administration isdestroying our freedoms, spending us into debt, and destroying our relationships with our allies. All for what? They claim they don't support Bush Co, but they attack anyone that tries to speak truth to power. We're not burying our head in the sand, we're trying to break through the propaganda that the MSM all too easily passes along. I find it so sad that someone's solution to all this is simply go out and bomb the s**t out of a country. Kill a few million innocent bystanders and then what.....?

Too bad nobody watches Olbermann.

Have you seen his ratings?

On August 24, he only drew 440,000 viewers. Even the pathetic Nancy Grace beat him.

While I can't stand Bill O, he brought in over 2.2 million viewers during the same time slot.

He can say what he wants, but nobody is paying attention.

The righties posting here lately are so -- how to put it -- insane, that I suspect they are really lefties trying to make all Republicans look like war-mongering kooks.

I know a lot of Republicans. I disagree with them on most policy points, but they're not insane. They don't actively wish for nuclear war and torture. They don't see terrorists hiding behind every tree.

I'd like to see Bill's voter reg. card before I put much credence in his conservatism.

So Olberman says criticism is patriotic, but Rumsfeld criticizing critics is fascist??

And Olberman's "...and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.." line describes exactly what Rumsfeld is doing -- defending an unpopular war.

Is Olberman off his rocker, or just a completely misguided? I suspect a little of both.

Well, unfortunately Ross, Ole Bin Laden has said in 97 that he has Suitcase nukes and soviet-scientists on his staff to maintain them.

Even if its true that he said it, why would anyone believe him? The guy is a f*cking terrorist who wants you to be afraid of him.

He has stated that he will use them against the 10 largest US cities with the highest Jewish population. He further stated that the US Southern and No. borders are unguarded and he has brought them in.

Apparently along with the "soviet-scientists" to maintain them. Do you realize how fanciful and ridiculous this is.

they are scary with a capital S.

Only to cowards frightened by their own shadows. But that is who is running the country, and I guess that is something to at least be concerned about, even if it isn't "scary".

So Olberman says criticism is patriotic, but Rumsfeld criticizing critics is fascist??

I don't think he said that did he?

defending an unpopular war.

Except he didn't defend the war. He just attacked its critics in language that is disturbing for a government official who has direct control over the US armed forces.

Little "bill" seems to have crawled back in his hole, still, I'd like to add my two cents since I worked at The White House way back when as a CNN producer when 41 ran the world:

If you, bill, want war with Iraq, I suggest you sign up for the Army, something Cheney, Condi, Wolfie, Mehlman and crew dodged for so many many many years.

And, BTW, President Bush says (again) that Iraq had "NOTHING" to do with the either of the attacks on the WTC, despite "18-percent approval rating" Darth Cheney saying they did.

So, your boyz in The White House seemed to be very confused, like Rummy, besides being completely incompetent. What did my late moderate Republican father once say about Mr. Bush, oh, yes, "The guy ain't smart enough to run a two car funeral."

Or one with 2,600 dead GI's. So far.

Have you even read the transcript of Rumsfeld's speech, Steven? It seems obvious to me you (and Olberman) have not. The link's below:

http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID=1033

Here's the juicy tidbits:

"I recount that history because once again we face similar challenges in efforts to confront the rising threat of a new type of fascism. Today -- another enemy, a different kind of enemy -- has made clear its intentions with attacks in places like New York and Washington, D.C., Bali, London, Madrid, Moscow and so many other places. But some seem not to have learned history's lessons."

and

"We hear every day of new plans, new efforts to murder Americans...But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters there's more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats."

Just where did Rumsfeld ever contend that dissent was "appeasing fascists?" He merely stated that he believes that critics of our war on terror are wrong. He never questioned dissenter's "morality" or "intellect."

I won' go as far as to call you ignorant, Steven, but I think you and Olberman are being disingenuous.

What's interesting is the mistaken notion that we were out to fight "fascism" in World War II. Somehow we neglected the avowedly fascist Spain. We now have leaders who so ideologically focused that they are picking fights for American soldiers based on that ideology rather than a sober evaluation of the threat the country or enemy poses to our security. In fact, nowhere does Rumsfeld even bother to put a fig leaf on it. This is an ideological struggle, not a war defending our national security.

As usual, you can get a good insight into where the Bush administration is at by looking at what words they use in their attacks. (call the other guy what you are before he calls you out) I guess that's a preemptive attack. Fascism was defined by Mussolini as "corporatism". Its where the government serves the interests of the major corporations and big business instead of the people. Ain't that what Bush & co. does?

If we stop standing on the necks of the people of the middle east and stop supporting the dictators who are standing on their necks (like in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc., maybe crazies like Ben Laden would get no support. Sometimes I think the Bushies left him out there unpurpose.

The real disgrace in this latest episode of un-American hate diatribes by our dry-drunk war-criminal-in-chief and his psychotic minister of war is the silence of people who claim they have a special dedication to defending truth and the honest use of language as the foundation of a free and just society. We of course have to wait for the Sunday editorial pages and talking heads before we can definitively conclude they have sold out their countrymen, but except for Olbermann and the usual honorable suspects in the principled progressive media, the silence has been deafening.

Real journalists and editorialists depend on language and our culturally agreed upon meaning of words to communicate. Without that agreement providing the basis for communication, we would have no use for "journalists" and "editorialists". So when the thugs and scum who have viciously kidnapped our country strip the meaning from words like "fascism", propagandistically appropriating the emotional content of such words in their un-patriotric traitorous attacks on those defending our very core values of liberty and justice, where are the "journalists" and "editorialists" who should be leading the charge against such blatant abuse of language for such malicious purposes?

Fascism in Germany http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/23.html

And where are groups like the Anti-Defamation League, who in recent times have claimed it is their mission to defend against corruption the definition and usage of certain words from the era that gave us the modern, accepted meaning of "fascism", and who in actuality have gone on the attack against those who would expose the un-American behavior and tactics of those trying to create a new era of neo-fascism?

In a notable example about a year ago, Durbin criticized fascist tactics by the unpatriotic right wing thugs who have hijacked our government. The ADL propogandistically reframed his comments, including throwing in the word "holocaust" that he never used, and accused of him of being horrendously insensitive. On these same grounds, they have a moral obligation to demand an apology on these grounds, and in this case would actually be intellectually honest in doing so, from the right-wing thugs who this week have done far worse.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/4734_52.htm

What a pathetic spectacle to witness as these immoral hypocrites, in their silence, make common cause with this band of un-American traitors who viciously attack our country and our constitutional democracy in their quest for naked, abusive power.

Positive Press on Iraq Is Aim of U.S. Contract http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/30/AR2006083003011_pf.html

U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq.

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

I just kept hitting the table in excitement as I watched that. I haven't felt that much hope outside of the Bible or a Bus Project rally in, like, forever.

As I feared, Olbermann's comparison of the Shrubbery to the Chamberlain administration is not understandable by Republicans. It doesn't stick to the soundbite Chamberlain = appeasement. Republicans are very simple creatures. There is black, and there is white. There is evil, and there is good. Each person gets to stand for one thing. Chamberlain gets appeasement. Anything else about him confuses the trog mindset.

Well done,

It was all the right words and Oberman should be lauded...but there is on huge difference between Murrow an Oberman:

Murrow was on CBS which was one of three TV Stations.

Oberman is on the worst performing cable news channel.

While his words are prophetic I fear (like so much the left does) he is doing nothing more than preaching to the choir.

Hi WOW Don't you see a connection between CNN, Oberman, and your choir? All biased towards a 'Hate America' attitude. Pretty transparent. All I ask is WHY? Is liberalism truly a mental disorder? Must be. Your attempts at defining your positions leave me baffled; your interpretations of facts defy logic. I love my little home in Medford, but I am stunned at the hate coming from the left. I sometimes wonder 'Can't we all just get along". ha! Have a nice day. K

I honestly am not sure where I fit into the categorization of trolls versus BlueOregonians, and no one needs to actually respond to that. My only suggestion is that there is value in the casual, non-activist reader seeing blatent lies by sociopathic right-wingers being factually and forcefully contradicted on a website like this. After all, politics is not a sport for the timid because real life is at stake. The calm rebuttals from some will appeal to a segment of those readers, and the in-your-face responses will appeal to others.

I'd just encourage folks to use this opportunity to sharpen their intellect and rhetoric on these pathetic trolls since they have invited such a response.

Ask may be right. Seeing someone who says something like "Is liberalism truly a mental disorder? " verbally opposed could be instructive to those who encounter this blog casually.

And here is my answer to Kitty C. and others of that persuasion:

When I was young, liberalism meant the views of those like Hubert Humphrey: interested in farmers and working folk, and in making sure all children were educated, housed and fed. The issue of the Vietnam War complicated the definition of liberal--was it those from rural states like George McGovern and Frank Church who came to oppose the Vietnam War, or was it the "LBJ all the way" crowd? Had Humphrey made clear earlier in 1968 which side of that debate he was on, might he have defeated Nixon? We will never know.

By the late 1980s, there were those (incl. a favorite history professor who taught classes I took as a grad student to renew a teaching certificate with a concentration in social science) who said liberalism no longer had any meaning outside the context of FDR--it had become just another slur for use against one's political enemies.

In that sense, it really had little meaning by the last third of the 20th century (in 1984, was Mondale the "liberal" candidate because his political roots went back to Humphrey, or were Hart and Jackson the true liberals because they rejected "we've always done it that way" in favor of experimenting with new approaches?). And it has no real meaning at a time when those like Westlund appeal to many Oregonians(and Bernie Sanders, Angus King, Jesse Ventura, James Jeffords, and Lowell Weicker who held office as Indep. or 3rd party Gov., Congressman or Senator). Anyone who has paid much attention to this blog knows there is huge internal debate between those who admire Westlund, and the "Westlund's no progressive" folks who wanted all good Democrats to support Ted unquestioningly.

What I think is a "mental disorder" is the attitude that bashing opponents can be translated into support for one's chosen candidates or elected officials. Or else, there are those who have been in the political majority in DC or in various states and are scared that this election could end their political power.

One more thing. It is hard to imagine how anyone in the political mainstream would call the radio show Marketplace (which, among other things, has a weekly chat with a Dallas stockbroker) a "liberal" show. Yet today on that show, there was a commentator who said most news media are owned by conservative corporations--and that there isn't really a "liberal media", just some news organizations which sometimes report facts that make certain powerful people uncomfortable. The commentator said that there is something wrong in this country when accuracy is considered "liberal bias".

Conservative corporations. What makes a corp conservative or for that matter a corp liberal?

The test cannot be political contributions to individual political candidates...since do not most corps donate to whomever is in power and often donate to both sides I bet in some cases?

Speeches...corporations being purely legal entities...they cannot speak..only the employees can. Do some corps hire exclusively liberal or conservative employees. I have never been asked about my political beliefs in an interview..has anyone?

There have been comments about conservative corporations..what distinquishes a lefty corp from a righty corp?

Dear LT, There are many of us here who admire Westlund but want Ted at the helm of a majority Democratic state government, and will be at his heels, urging him into an actively progressive leadership role.

There could not be a liberal corporation, just ones that would support some liberal goals. The point of forming a corporation is enabling people to do business on a grand scale without the bother of personal responsibility. That is conservative philosophy in spades.

And it has no real meaning at a time when those like Westlund appeal to many Oregonians(and Bernie Sanders, Angus King, Jesse Ventura, James Jeffords, and Lowell Weicker who held office as Indep. or 3rd party Gov., Congressman or Senator).

There is almost nothing that connects that group politically other than that they were elected to usually partisan positions without having a major party label. You can add Arne Carlson, Jesse Ventura's predecessor as Governot of Minnesota, who was first elected as an independent write-in candidate after losing the Republican primary election. I suppose they would also all reject having the term liberal applied to them or their politics.

Speeches...corporations being purely legal entities...they cannot speak..only the employees can.

The Supreme Court would disagree with you. It ruled that preventing corportations from spending money to promote their political beliefs was a violation of the corporation's free speech, not the employees'.

What makes a corp conservative or for that matter a corp liberal?

A corporation is just a legal form of organization for a group of people. So what makes the American Legion liberal or conservative? Or the National Rifle Association? Or the AFL-CIO? Is the Wall Street journal editorial page conservative?

I think, in general, the leadership and political positions of most corporations would be called "conservative". The leadership tends to be Republicans, support profits over people, want to reduce government social nets, eliminate regulations which constrain their business while promoting regulations that protect and sustain their business. They hire lobbyists to support those general positions and to protect their private interests against the public's interests.

On the point in question, you can argue about how much it translates to the content of news pages, but the media is clearly controlled by conservative management. And the media business is built around attracting advertising from the relatively conservative business community. So both its management and its customers are conservatives. Of course the media's product, the audience, includes people with a variety of politics and interests. So there are media outlets that appeal to a wide variety of people.

GOP plan for Iraq: Fear, baby, fear!

DEMO plan for Iraq: Phased withdrawl, not a Reagan or Nixon-like "cut-and-run".

DEMO plan for Iraq: Phased withdrawl

Isn't withdrawl a southern strategy?

Well, unfortunately Ross, Ole Bin Laden has said in 97 that he has Suitcase nukes and soviet-scientists on his staff to maintain them. He has stated that he will use them against the 10 largest US cities with the highest Jewish population. He further stated that the US Southern and No. borders are unguarded and he has brought them in. Read his writings, all of this is in there they are scary with a capital S. Al-Qaida has smuggled tactical nuclear weapons and uranium into the U.S. across the Mexican border and is planning to launch a major terrorist attack using a combination of nukes and dirty nukes

Bill, Bin Laden is a terroist and not Mister Honest. If claiming to have nukes in the US gets more supporters then that he will say. Kudos to KO for trying to get the truth about Rummy out. Bill I hope that you day you will stop being a racist bastard and start being someone decent. You are the exact kind of person that in school we thought to never be like.

i disagree with olbermann.

the irony of recent republican attacks doesn't lie in their own hypocritical appeasement of terrorists, as olbermann suggests. the irony of recent republican attacks lies in their own hypocritical fascism.

did britain spy on citizens innocent of any crime? did it imprison them without access to the courts for years on end? did it torture people to death?

no. nazi germany did that. and so do the republicans leading this country. we really have to vote 'em out before it's too late.

also, if you don't ignore the trolls, you let them define the debate. do better, folks.

Dave B- You're either naive or slavish to state that a corporation can't 'vote' Republican, just it's employees. Perhaps you've noticed, the Information Age has revealed how the GOP has been operating as a greenlight to nearly every corporate lobby... obviously, they operate for their own personal gain, not the voters'. If you dispute this, you likely haven't noticed Ted Stevens' secret hold on the bill to wiki all government spending, providing access to all Americans to see where our money goes. How appropriate that Mr "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens try to keep the record GOP pork-orgy in the dark.

OF COURSE BushCo doesn't want to leave Iraq... OF COURSE they want to stir the hornet's nest a bit more... they're bleeding our budget dry and showing the Dems as the true party of restraint. As if terrorists required record defense pork spending on equipment needed to invade countries. Obviously, terrorists know no bounds... this is a war of ideas (and those who control/manipulate them for power, on either side), and it can only be fought with diplomatic prevention and intelligence that wins low-profile battles without fanning flames of resentment. Certainly isn't profitable for cable news, the GOP, or the thousands of opportunistic contractors either. Hmmm...

Here's where the TV pundit zombies tell you that the GOP equals SECRURITY and voting for Dems means we surrender or quit or cut'n'run. Appeasers?? The appeasers are Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush and the rest of the bunch, who supported/profited from Saddam's and Osama's escapades! By the way, Osama wanted Saddam dead for years. Osama's central beef is with the current Saudi government and their whoreing with the Bush family, which favors a hard-right alliance with Israel. And he ranted about the secular western lifestyle that Saddam enjoyed. Yet, you fake patriot dittoheads think they had something to do with 9/11. I knew Bush would take advantage of that situation, to the detriment of our nation. Brilliant, you rubes.

I welcome the right wingnut trolls on this blog... I don't see the point in an amen choir, the only way to restore democracy is to have a dialogue between one another... more and more people are distrusting the mass media to report the 'pulse' of our country. So, wingnuts, where is the accountability from BushCo? Or for your defense of his unlimited hubris and lack of accountability? They'd like to thank you for not bothering to scratch the surface... it's easier to hide a facist shift in direction, the corporation-dictated foreign policy embraced and sold by today's GOP.

LT wrote:

'... a commentator who said most news media are owned by conservative corporations--and that there isn't really a "liberal media", just some news organizations which sometimes report facts that make certain powerful people uncomfortable. The commentator said that there is something wrong in this country when accuracy is considered "liberal bias".'

Bingo! That is exactly the case. The conservative - or whatever one wants to call the kind of folks who think Shrub is doing a fine job - view of the world depends on inaccurate information. Facts and historical perspective make the silliness of their beliefs obvious, even to themselves. So they adore the almost fact-free FoxNews propaganda and infotainment.

I wonder if conservatives realize that progressives moan over CNN as much as they do - but not for the same reasons, of course. And conservatives who read - there are a few - think the New York Times is the liberal devil, while I find it subserviant to the wealthy elite, the US-Israel lobby, and the security establishment [until their lies reach the laughable stage and the paper must bail out to preserve a modicum of credibility].

From the current "conservative" viewopint the "hate-America crowd" would include Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ike Eisenhower, Mark Twain, Helen Keller, Albert Einstein, John Steinbeck, Arthur Miller, and many more prominent Americans. Senator Joe McCarthy and Rush Limbaugh would be America lovers, however.