Does the public believe the situation in Iraq has been improving in the last several months?

The answer to that is certainly NO, according to an analysis of recent public opinion polls by the Center for American Progress:

They certainly DO NOT think things are going swimmingly.

What does the public think about troop levels? This to is pretty clear... 68% want us to either start withdrawing immediately or within a year:

The verdict on the surge is rather simple to see. It's failing miserably. As is our occupation of Iraq.


Elizabeth Edwards teaches Wolf Blizter (in language even he can understand) what's wrong with Ann Coulter

Another video that speak for itself:

Bill Moyers (PBS) on Rupert Murdock (News Corpse/FOX Noise)

The video speak for itself.

From the ‘duh’ department

This in from Ryan Powers over at Think Progress:

Britian’s National Security Experts: Threat of Terrorism Increased As a Result Of War In Iraq

Early this morning, British police “discovered an explosive device in a car laden with gasoline, nails, and gas canisters” in central London. British authorities have not said who may be responsible for the attempted attack, but Jacqui Smith, Britain’s new homeland secretary, characterized the incident as attempted “international terrorism.” The BBC noted that the timing may be significant as the incident comes as “the second anniversary of the 7 July bombings approach[es].”

David Cameron, leader of Britain’s Conservative Party:

“It is clear that over the last few years decisions that have been taken, the difficulties there have been in Iraq, clearly have had a wider effect” and “the threat to Britain was now greater as a result of the war [in Iraq] was ‘a statement of fact.’” [ABC News, 12/18/2006]

Dr. Jonathan Eyal, the director of international security at the Royal United Services Institute:

The “terrorist threat facing Britain from home-grown al-Qaeda agents is higher than at any time since the September 11 attacks in 2001.” He faulted the “wars in Afghanistan and Iraq” and western government’s inability to kill or capture Osama bin Laden. [The Telegraph, 2/25/2007]

Former chief of the British intelligence service MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller:

“UK foreign policy … in Iraq and Afghanistan” has inspired a “violent threat” to the UK that will persist for “more than a generation.” [The Independent, 11/11/2006]

However, these aren't new assessments for British experts:

Foreign Affairs Committee of the British Parliament:

Britons are more - not less - likely to be the target of terrorist attacks as a result of the war in Iraq.” [BBC News, 2/2/2004]

Britain’s Joint Terrorist Analysis Center:

[E]vents in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity in the UK.” [Financial Times, 7/19/2005]

Ryan finishes with this:

The U.S. intelligence community assessed that Iraq “has become the ‘cause celebre‘ for jihadists.” The State Department has acknowledged the war in Iraq “has been used by terrorists as a rallying cry for radicalization and extremist activity that has contributed to instability in neighboring countries.” The longer the occupation in Iraq continues, the more it serves as a recruiting and propaganda tool for terrorists. Ultimately — as British experts understand — the Iraq war leads to greater insecurity around the globe."


Sean Hannity's head might just explode when he sees this...

In a new poll, a Fox poll, asked the following (and ridiculous) question with some astounding results:

If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?

Democrats 41%

Republicans 38%

Both the same (not listed) 9%

Don’t know (not listed) 12%

I’m sure simpleton Sean will focus on the 3 point margin of error, but even taking that into account, they’d be tied in a FOX poll. A FOX POLL!

Nah nah nah nah nah nah.

Remember journalism? Meet Helen Thomas

If you don't make a regular habit of reading him, Glenn Greenwald’s interview with Helen Thomas called, well, Interview with Helen Thomas, is a wonderful peek into the history of the White House Press Corp. and how it has change drastically over the past five decades.

Today’s Press Corp. should be ashamed of how they have wasted away into nothing more than a class of stenographers – most of whom are so afraid to lose their invitations to whichever cocktail parties they perceive important – that they’re willing to stand by and watch as they are lied too, manipulated or worse, forced to take part in a criminal conspiracy against the very country that depends upon them, albeit unwittingly, in their silence.

Here is the interview in it's entirety:
Following is a verbatim transcript of that interview, edited solely for length:

GG: You have covered every President since John Kennedy. I wanted to ask if you could identify how the White House press corps has changed over time, if it has, and what differences are there in terms of how journalists cover presidents?

HT: Well, that's a big order. But I do think that in the good olden days, reporters were really straight reporters. I worked for a wire service, UPI, for 57 years, and I covered the White House for UPI from the 70s onto Bush, and then became a columnist. So I certainly know both sides.

As a wire service reporter, I played it straight, with the facts, which is absolutely required of a wire service reporter. But that doesn't mean I bowed out of the human race. I permitted myself to think, to care, to believe, but it didn't get in my copy.

I did think that tough questions were always very important. With Kennedy, we knew he enjoyed the banter with the press, and he had the first live televised news conferences. And it made a big difference in terms of really capturing the imagination of the public. It was the first time they really saw reporters in action, they saw a witty president that was able to dodge questions as deftly as anyone, and he had great eloquence. That was the first time the American people really became interested in presidential news conferences.

And then Johnson had a love-hate relationship with the press. He couldn't live without us, and yet at the same time, he thought we were hurting him every day. The words "credibility gap" were created in that era.

With Nixon, that is when news management and manipulation really began. Now, every president wants to put his best foot forward, and always be able to manage and manipulate news coverage.

All presidential candidates, especially, vow to run an open administration. But they step foot in the Oval Office and the Iron Curtain slams down. Suddenly, all information that I think belongs in the public domain becomes their private preserve.

The manipulation of the press has become greater and greater. This is the most secretive administration I have ever covered. And they're all secretive.

GG: Has the press corps that covers the White House played a role in why the White House is so manipulative and why they're able to get away with such secrecy?

HT: Very much so. Reporters, after Watergate, realized that we had let so much go by us. They got much tougher when President Ford took over. It wasn't animosity. It was anger that we hadn't asked the right questions. And the press became tougher.

But they really went soft after 9/11. Reporters, I'm assuming, did not want to be called unpatriotic and un-American when we were in a national crisis.

And I don't think the corporate heads exactly wanted anyone to rock the boat at that time.

But I kept asking questions about the validity of going to war against a country that had done nothing to us.

GG: How have you been treated by your colleagues that cover the White House, in light of the approach you take as compared to the approach that they take?

HT: Two weeks after he became President in the first term, President Bush dropped into our press room, and held an impromptu news conference. He went down the front row, and I was sitting in the front row, and every reporter asked about his pending tax cuts.

But when he got to me, I said: "Mr. President, why don't you respect the wall between church and state?" And he said: "I do," and I said: "No, sir, you don't. Otherwise you would not establish, for the first time in history, a religious office in the White House." And he drew back, and I said: "you're secular." So we had this dialogue.

That afternoon, I got a call from Ari Fleisher, the White House Press Secretary, saying: "What's the idea of blindsiding the President"?

Well, after that, I did go to a couple news conferences, and I was called on, and I asked the President why he had seen Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, 9 times, but never would give any meeting with Arafat. My questions did not sit well. After that, I was never called on at a News Conference. I would show up but didn't like being a prop.

And then they put me in the back row, which didn't matter. What matters is the question. You get one chance at the barrel with the president. You should not let it slide. I mean, they are public servants, presidents are. We pay them. And they should be accountable.

[Other reporters] are nice to me, but I'm not trying to please my peers. I'm trying to get the information that the American people have to know, they have a right to know everything that affects their lives and that is done in their name.

GG: You mentioned the fear of being accused of being unpatriotic after 9/11 -- is that fear eroding now?

I think reporters definitely retreated and they let the country down. I wrote a book, called Watchdogs for Democracy? -- with a question mark -- because I was really upset, because I felt reporters should be asking important questions to save lives.

They began coming out of their shell with Katrina. They were basically unleashed then, were allowed to ask the questions to show the misery that was going on, and also to question the administration. Since then, they have become tougher. I do think that their corporate heads gave them the go-ahead during Katrina.

But we really let the people down. The fact that news agencies went along with the fact that they wouldn't show any photographs of coffins? The President attended no funerals and so forth.

And all of the whole business of casualties are not even mentioned for the Iraqis. I called the Pentagon -- used to call and say "how many Iraqis have been killed?" They'd say: "We don't track that. They don't count."

[Thomas added, in response to my mentioning the Washington Post series on conditions at Walter Reed, that she was not impressed with the Post's coverage: "Walter Reed, for God's sake, that's been there, the whole issue had been reported by others. Why did the Washington Post suddenly jump on it? Other reporters had done stories on it. Where was the Post, for God's sake? We're into the fifth year of this war."]

GG: There is a new global Pew poll that conducted a major survey of world opinion of 47 countries that was just released yesterday, and it shows that public opinion of the United States in virtually every country over the last 6 years has declined enormously. And there is a real confusion among Americans about why that is, and they have a hard time understanding why that is.

Have press failures in discussing what we are doing in the world played a role in that?

HT: I think the American people, like people all over the world, know that under international law, you only go to war if you're attacked or you have a treaty with another country to go to war if they're attacked.

An unprovoked war, based on every rationale that turns out to be untrue, certainly has caused our esteem in the world -- we are despised -- not because we gave them something and took it back. It's because we were on a pedestal. We had a halo. Everything we represented, people all over the world aspired to.

And what we did was absolutely betray those great values and principles. You do not attack a country that did nothing to you.

GG: One of the polls that was released 6 months after we invaded Iraq showed that 70% of Americans thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. And a recent poll shows that 40% of Americans still believe that -- believe that Saddam Hussein had a role to play in planning the 9/11 attacks, which, of course, is a complete and utter myth.

How is such an obvious myth allowed to take hold among such a large percentage of the American populace? Is that a matter of great concern? Why do you think that happened?

HT: Every day, for two years, in the run-up to the war, Ari Fleisher would say, in one breath: "Saddam Hussein . . . 9/11" -- "Saddam Hussein . . . 9/11." And even after the war started, when the President admitted there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda, it still persisted. It's the whole politics of repetition and manipulation and propaganda.

Even Tony Blair said that in 45 minutes we could be obliterated by a missile launched by Iraq. I'm paraphrasing. Every talk show said that the smoking gun would be the mushroom cloud.

That's why it was so effective. There were no voices to counter it. Congress laid down on the job. I think we have to hang our heads in shame. The truth is always the first causality of war, to coin a cliche.

GG: One of the concerns that many people have, in light of what the President and his followers are saying about Iran, is that it seems to be quite similar in terms of how the rhetoric is evolving when compared to what was done leading up to Iraq.

How serious of a possibility do you think it is that there will be some sort of military conformation with Iran before the President leaves office?

HT: It's clearly a danger. The neocons definitely want it. Yet most of them are jumping ship now -- running to safe houses, like Georgetown University, John Hopkins University School of International Studies. They're fading into the woodwork, because they know things are on the skids.

Certainly Israel now considers Iran a big problem, a danger, as they did in terms of Iraq. But I think the Iranians are afraid now. We have two aircraft carriers pointing missiles, and submarines, in their backyard. They are getting softer. They invited the UN inspectors to come in. So diplomacy is working.

But the real question is -- will this President do anything rash, go even further? He doesn't even understand that diplomacy works. Nobody wants their country shot up, not even the worst dictators.

GG: I really appreciate your taking the time to do this interview. I hope you know that there are a lot of people who really admire what you do. I read the transcript of the White House press gaggle every day and it's always easy to know exactly which questions are yours because they're the ones that are probing and demand real answers.

HT: There are a lot of people who think I'm off the wall, but that's OK.

I always say to them -- who are you? We pay you. You are working for the American people. It doesn't mean we're antagonistic. It means we care about this country, and care about truth. And I honestly believe we will be better off when we face the reality of what we've done.

-- Glenn Greenwald


Cross posted at Dailykos


New Pew Polling Analysis: Liberalism IS mainstream

Yo! Main Stream Media!

Read it and weep (see full story below). The numbers prove it. The more you pretend this country isn’t running as fast as it can from the failed, radical conservative agenda, the harder it’s going to be to control the masses (and the message).

People aren’t as stupid as you treat them. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The stupidity lies with the corporate executives and the on-air producers who have chosen to dumb down our national media while insisting to allow the most corrupt administration in our nation’s history to literally get away with murder, one of just numerous crimes against humanity, our nation and our constitution – and instead of taking down radical sociopaths like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, you promote and elevate them as though they represent any majority in any constituency. They don’t. (We all know their popularity is really because their corporate commandants place them in 90% of the market places while stifling all other voices – see this startling new report on the makeup of talk radio and this debunking of the right-wing excuses that it’s “the market”).

Oh, there are a few of you out there fighting the good fight and to you, I tip my hat. I also cross my fingers in the hope you aren’t silenced for all your troubles or not allowed to spread your wings (by perhaps having others like you added to the fold).

Looks at what MSNBC is doing with its good fortune of breakout star, Keith Olbermann’s impact on the once failing network. When more time opened up on their network with the demise of Imus, did they look to more progressive, mainstream media personalities to fill the void? Of course not! They turned to yet another air-headed, conservative in independents' clothing to add even less to the national conversation – a guy who like every other conservative now appearing on the network, has rating in the toilet, despite the lead in from Olbermann.

What about CNN? They’ve promoted the newest (and by far dumbest) out of touch, right-wing no-body and what’s happening because of it? The ratings for his show are the lowest of all shows on cables news networks combined (and falling). ABC/Disney even jumped on that bandwagon by offering this jackass a gig every now on then on Good Morning America (Way to go Diane!). How’s that decision working out for you idiots?

All your efforts to maintain the status quo, to perpetuate the liberal label as being a very bad thing, is failing miserably.

From Turkana, a review of the reports details:

"Pew's numbers show that:

In 2002, Party affiliation was about even, with 43% identifying or leaning towards both the Democrats and Republicans. Now, the Democrats lead 50-35%.

In 1994, when the Republicans took Congress, only 41% agreed that "the government should help more needy people, even if it adds to the nation's debt." Today, that number is 54%.

Five years ago, an impressive 65% said "today it's really true that the rich just get richer while the poor get poorer," but that number has actually risen to 73%.

In 2002, 62% agreed that "The best way to ensure peace is through military strength." Today, that number has dropped to 49%.

In 1987, only 8% said they were unaffiliated with any religion, but that number has now grown to 12%. Furthermore:

The poll finds greater public acceptance of homosexuality and less desire for women to play traditional roles in society. Both represent a continuation of trends that have been apparent over the past 20 years, and have occurred mostly among older people.

In 1995, 58% favored Affirmative Action. With gains across the political spectrum, that number now stands at 70%."

His full diary, 'New Polling Analysis: Liberalism Ascendant', is posted here.

It's uplifting see all the figures, which include some for another report, The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America is a Myth by the Campaign For America's Future and Media Matters, that has additional numbers like this:
69% agree that "t is the responsibility of the federal government to make sure all Americans have access to health coverage," with 76% percent deeming it more important than Bush's tax cuts, and 60% willing to have their own taxes raised towards that end.

52% believe government investment in alternative energy sources is the best way to break our addiction to foreign oil, with 68% agreeing conservation is a better solution than production, and 64% willing to pay higher taxes for renewable energy research.

77% believe the minimum wage should be increased.

66% believe the wealthy pay too little taxes.

53% deem Bush's tax cuts a failure because of the increased deficit and cuts in government programs.

69% believe the government "should care for those who can't care for themselves."

62% believe undocumented workers should have the opportunity to "keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status."


What the hell is going with NBC & MSNBC??

Yesterday I read the no other than Ann Coulter was going to be Chris Matthews’ guest on what MSNBC calls “super Tuesday” (it’s not even worth explaining), and they’re even asking you what you’d like to ask her at their site:

Ask Ann Coulter a question
Ann Coulter plays Hardball on Tuesday
Updated: 4:42 p.m. ET June 21, 2007

The always-controversial Ann Coulter will be joining us on the Hardball Plaza on Tuesday. We want you to hear from you beforehand and include some of your voices in the conversation. Send us your questions for Ann Coulter – write down your question and send it in, or get in front of a camera and upload your video question. If you'd like, include a picture of yourself and we may show it on Hardball if your question is selected.
Here’s the question I asked:
“When was the last time you were fucked? I mean, REALLY fucked hard? It seems that's what wrong with your demeanor and maybe Matt Sanchez could give you a discount”
Do you think they’ll use it?  LOL

Now, I don't watch Hardball anymore, but Chrissy's ratings a terrible and inking week by week, so he's pulling a FOX and going with the cheap, quick controversy.

I don't even watch MSNBC anymore, except for Keith. Too many flake hosts, pundits and blowhards for me.

Then the first thing I see this morning when I sign online 7 check out my favorite blogs is this headline by Joe Sudbay (DC) over at AmericaBlog:
NBC's Today Show features bigoted, homophobe Bill Donohue as authority on bigotry

“This is rich. This morning, the Today Show ran a piece on alleged anti-Catholic bigotry. The guest they used to defend Catholics from bigotry? Bill Donohue…Nice job NBC. Donohue is a poster child for bigotry -- and the Today Show just gave his hatred added credibility.”

That’s right, the homophobic, jew-hating and racist, anti-everything, William Donohue spent a little time chatting with the morning show people. It seems NBS’s Today Show followed MSNBC’s lead and brought their own little whack job in for a little chat.

The problem in both cases is this: giving these sociopaths a platform in mainstream, yet again, only empowers them, their anti-social behavior and even more unstable followers. For a cheap, quick buck and spike in ratings, major media outlets help seed the destruction of our way of life on Nielsen point at a time.

Not cool.

And, all this is on top of putting loser Joe Scarborough in the old Don Imus morning slot which for the life of me I can’t figure out. His rating are as also low as can be – despite the lead in my wonder boy, Keith Olbermann gives him – and he can’t maintain, at all. Not even with all the seedy, Hollywood crap he spews not with scorn like Olbermann, but as serious news like his ilk Bill O'Reilly and Neil Cavuto do.

Keep telling yourself you’re owned by either side, Joe! I guess if you say it long enough maybe someone might believe you.

Tucker Carlson’s ratings are nearly as bad as CNN’s Glenn Beck’s. Joe & Chrissie’s are circling the white porcelain figures as well.

What part about this country moving back to towards the left, progressive side of itself – the side of this country which made a global name for all of us – do you producers and heads of news and entertain not understand?

Bill O'Reilly is spitting flames because NBC “news” is telling and showing the truth about Iraq (and his ratings are falling in the categories that matter most). Keith Olbermann’s rating are through the roof. What part of this trend can’t you get across your thick, creative-less heads? It certainly is not that people want to see more, hear more and be forced suffer through more “conservative” or even Rethuglican air time (Joey in for Imus?).

I’m just tingling with anticipation wondering what’s next NBC & MSNBC. Michael Weiner Savage giving his own segment to counter ABC’s Beck slot on Good Morning America?

Wake up and smell the direction this country is going in guys. You’re exiting on the on ramp!

Cross posted at Dailykos



That is President Bush’s approval rating according to the latest new Newsweek poll, which is also a new low.

[A] record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.”
3 more points down and he ties Tricky Dick (Nixon). I say that happens in September when the "surge" is escalated again.

Elizabeth Edwards smacks down rodent Matt Drudge

Here's the quote in response to yet another bullshit story from the slime ball which claimed her duaghter supported Hillary Clinton over he father, John Edwards:

"It was Emma Claire, who pointed to a Hillary pin slyly and then, smiling pointed to her father. A nine-year [old] sense of humor -- you would have thought Matt Drudge would have been able to pick up on that."
Shout out to TPM Cafe for the original story:
"Elizabeth Edwards has blasted and mocked Matt Drudge for picking on the Edwards' nine-year-old daughter -- and Ms. Edwards even suggested Drudge has the intelligence and sophistication of a child, Election Central can reveal!

Her comment came in response to a Drudge Item quoting a local newspaper account that suggested that the Edwards' nine-year-old child supported Hillary, not her father.

Election Central has learned that Elizabeth put a comment in the comments section of another Web site's post debunking the Drudge item."

(I refuse to link to that pig's site, so I removed the Drudge link originally in the quote from TPM).

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

I have permission to use this picture. The artist gave everyone permission during the 2004 elections. I actually turned it into a 4' x 6' banner and flew it from a flag pole (at the Gay & Lesbian store I was working at at the time) for the Republican National Convention here in NY. The artist, who was marching up 8th avenue during the big protest saw it, loved it! He eventually gave me a signed print (lithograph I think)!

From Last week...Matthews Video: 'Rudy helps the terrorists'

Just when I thought this putz couldn't possibly say anything meaningful (other than Hillary & Bills sex life or what a "shrew" Hillary is in that sexist, chauvinistic way he has), he actually shocks and pleasantly surprise me with this:

Considering what a man-crush he has on terrorist hunter extraordinare , this was priceless.

More below the fold...

That one video is really why I put up this diary, but I didn't think it was enough. So, I did some further checking and found a few other interesting tidbits that related to people in the real world calling bull on Rudy's shit.

Evidentially more people are calling Rudy on his lunacy, not to mention his lies. It looks like the truth is going to be following Rudy around a bit more than he expected.

From Think Progress:

Firefighters target Giuliani’s 9/11 record.

Starting in January, New York City firefighters and family members of September 11th victims will be following former mayor Rudy Giuliani around nationally, challenging media claims that he “owns” the 9/11 attacks. “If somebody can tell me what he did on 9/11 that was so good, I’d love to hear it,” says Jim Riches, a deputy chief with the fire department whose son was killed in the World Trade Center attacks. “All he did was give information on the TV. He did nothing. He stood there with a TV reporter and told everyone what was going on. And he got it from everybody else down at the site.”

Here's just small taste from Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone piece:
Giuliani: Worse Than Bush

He's cashing in on 9/11, working with Karl Rove's henchmen and in cahoots with a Swift Boat-style attack on Hillary. Will Rudy Giuliani be Bush III?

Although few people outside of New York know it yet, there is an emerging controversy over Giuliani's heroic 9/11 legacy. Critics charge that Rudy's failure to resolve the feuding between the city's police and firefighters prior to the attack led to untold numbers of deaths, the most tragic example being the inability of firemen to hear warnings from police helicopters about the impending collapse of the South Tower. The 9/11 Commission concluded that the two departments had been "designed to work independently, not together," and that greater coordination would have spared many lives.

Given all that, why did Rudy offer this weirdly unsolicited reference to the controversy now? Was he joking? And if so, what the fuck? It was a strange and bitter comment to make, especially right on the heels of his grand-slam performance in the previous night's debate. If this is a guy who chews over a perceived slight in the middle of a victory lap, what's he going to be like with his finger on the button? Even Richard Nixon wasn't wound that tight.


Rudy giuliani is a true American hero, and we know this because he does all the things we expect of heroes these days -- like make $16 million a year, and lobby for Hugo Chávez and Rupert Murdoch, and promote wars without ever having served in the military, and hire a lawyer to call his second wife a "stuck pig," and organize absurd, grandstanding pogroms against minor foreign artists, and generally drift through life being a shameless opportunist with an outsize ego who doesn't even bother to conceal the fact that he's had a hard-on for the presidency since he was in diapers. In the media age, we can't have a hero humble enough to actually be one; what is needed is a tireless scoundrel, a cad willing to pose all day long for photos, who'll accept $100,000 to talk about heroism for an hour, who has the balls to take a $2.7 million advance to write a book about himself called Leadership. That's Rudy Giuliani. Our hero. And a perfect choice to uphold the legacy of George W. Bush.
It a great article.

From Crooks & Liars, a great rant on the Guiliani Myth:
'A myth that needs debunking' by Steve Benen

These paragraphs, from an article in The Politico yesterday, are so common they barely register anymore.
Giuliani has tried to appeal to social conservatives, embracing their agenda by pledging to appoint “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court, using Justices John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. as examples. Conservatives expect “strict constructionists” to determine that the Constitution does not mandate abortion rights.

But, like Dwight Eisenhower’s in 1952, Giuliani’s national security stature after the Sept. 11 attacks more likely explains his continued popularity within the religious right, whose voters have long held hawkish positions on the issue. (emphasis added)
Eisenhower was the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during World War II. Giuliani was mayor of New York on 9/11. Eisenhower’s national security stature was earned by defeating the Nazis and helping save the world. Giuliani’s national security stature is a media creation, bolstered by clever public relations. To put the two in the same sentence is comical.

And yet, this kind of implicit praise for Giuliani has taken root. NBC’s Chuck Todd has repeatedly claimed that Giuliani “owns 9/11.” The WSJ’s John Harwood said Giuliani can claim “combat” experience. The NYT uncritically characterizes Giuliani as the “commanding daddy.” The WaPo asserted as fact that Giuliani’s critics couldn’t possibly go after him “on national security” in the campaign. NBC’s David Gregory reported, “To many, 9/11 made Giuliani a hero.”

And all of these examples are just from the last three weeks. The further back we go, the more examples we find.

If ever there was a media myth in need of scrutiny, this is it.
Another Hardball moment I found through Crooks & Liars:
'Matthew get fired Up' by Logan Murphy

On yesterday's "Hardball" Chris Matthews was in rare form and fired up about Iraq, Immigration and fact-free Republican Presidential candidates. During his interview with Democratic Presidential candidate, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) he slams President Bush for his Iraq rhetoric and playing the terror card when it suits him, but his main target was Republican Presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani. Matthews questions why Giuliani has been allowed to spout off the wall , fact-free talking points and nobody has stepped up to challenge him. I think this quote to Biden after watching a clip of Giuliani says it all:

Here's the video of the two of them ripping into Rudy after a Rudy appearance on David Letterman:

Then of course, if you haven't seen it, is Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on Rudy:

And just for good measure, a great parody I found on Youtube by aravoth:

Well, that's all folks. It's going to be a long election cycle!

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

I have permission to use this picture. The artist gave everyone permission during the 2004 elections. I actually turned it into a 4' x 6' banner and flew it from a flag pole (at the Gay & Lesbian store I was working at at the time) for the Republican National Convention here in NY. The artist, who was marching up 8th avenue during the big protest saw it, loved it! He eventually gave me a signed print (lithograph I think)!

Cross posted at Dailykos

Hello, Everyone. Welcome to my world.

My name is Joshua (if you couldn't figure that out). I'm a native New Yorker. I've lived in the city for most of my life. I'm gay, HIV+ (20 years now), single (applications will be considered on a case by case basis) and I'm angry. Really angry.

My country is falling apart before my eyes. What once was a nation that fought evil empires, we are now a nation that has become that evil empire. What's going on is worse than most Americans realize. Even at 28% approval rating, this administration is plowing forward without a care in the world with the most corrupt, unconstitutional and disastrous policies that this nation has ever seen. There are days I don't believe we will ever recover.

More about that later.

I used to have a website through my AOL account - years before this thing called blogging happened, so I guess you could say that I have been blogging for years. That old site hasn't been up for a long time but I can say it was pretty much all about me, as opposed to politics, which will be what I blog about here.

I should also forewarn some of you grammar police (I know you're out there) that I'm not perfect and don't plan on losing any sleep over my spelling, grammar & run-on sentences, so neither should you.

While I'll have opinions of my own, the focus of my blog - what I mostly want to do with with it (for now) is spread the news - other peoples news (and great words, rants & observations) with as little of my tinkering as possible. Think of me as a personal aggregator, spreading & compiling the outrages of the day, the news that isn't being covered appropriately, from a honest prospective or at all for that matter.

So, welcome to my little online world, my blog.

Welcome to the joshua blog.


Keith Olbermann's Special Comments

I'm actually just putting these up because I wanted them all in one place & they deserve to be publicized as often as possible. So, here goes:

Keith Olbermann: The Rumsfeld Smackdown

Keith Olbermann: Sacrifice

Keith Olbermann: Bill Clinton's Fox News interview

Keith Olbermann: The Death of Habeas Corpus

Keith Olbermann: Bush owes us an apology

Keith Olbermann: Bush's visit to Vietnam

Keith Olbermann: 9/11 Anniversary: This hole in the ground

Keith Olbermann: Bush & lying

Keith Olbermann: Beginning of the end of America' (The Military Commissions Act)

Olbermann's Special comment: Advertising terror

Keith Olbermann: Pre-election Special Comment

Keith Olbermann: Democrats caving into Rethuglicans on Iraq

Keith Olbermann: De-constructs Bill O'Reilly (not technically one of his special comments)