At the end of the day

Clinton radio ad -- "The ad properly points out that Obama did not express any criticism of the GOP ideas. That is the problem." Per Armando. The alleged "party of ideas" that has "challenge[d] conventional wisdom of the last 10 or 15 years" has really, um, sucked. I can think of a list longer than what's in Hillary's ad.

FISA telecom immunity disunity -- Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will force "Dodd and Feingold to launch a filibuster that ruins their colleagues' nice European vacation." Why doesn't Reid STFU and get out of the way?! For details and what to do, see Yellow Dog.

Up yours to the U.S. Senate -- Bush re-nominated Steven Bradbury to head the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. Bradbury wrote "a pair of secret legal opinions that endorsed rough techniques for suspects in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency." TP

American evangelicals -- What do they want? "The answer, it turns out, is a little more complicated than 'Not Giuliani.' " Response to a Beliefnet questionnaire on favorability ratings of presidential candidates: 55% Huck, 53% McCain, 49% Obama, 27% Hillary, and 25% Mitt. For evangelical "hot-buttons" and how they've changed, read Tim Grieve.

Iraq debate: "The leading Democratic presidential candidates and their allies on Capitol Hill have launched fierce attacks in recent days on a White House plan to forge a new, long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government, complaining that the administration is trying to lock in a lasting U.S. military presence in Iraq before the next president takes office." Thursday's WaPo

Iraq explosions -- In Mosul, at least 15 killed, 132 wounded. In Kirkuk, a car bomb killed 5, wounded 11.

Environmental index: "A new international ranking of environmental performance puts the United States at the bottom of the Group of 8 industrialized nations and 39th among the 149 countries on the list." NYT

About those robo calls -- In comments, Shaun Dakin, CEO and founder of Stop Political Calls wrote, "These calls are an epidemic and are invading the privacy of All American Voters.... ...Our members are taking a stand and saying enough is enough at the National Political Do Not Contact Registry..."

Former SC Democratic Party chair Dick Harpootlian, an Obama supporter, likened Bill Clinton's campaign remarks to Lee Atwater. WTF? When CNN's Jessica Yellin asked Bill about it, Clinton disputed the charge and calmly confronted her and media in general -- despite CNN's hype that he "lashed out" -- for acting like the sensationalizing twits that they are. Later, CNN 's Soledad O'Brien screeched about Bill's response to Yellin. Media lapdogs don't like being called on their B.S. You can go Cheney yourself, CNN. Via Taylor Marsh.

"The rot of the Jack Welch Network" -- "For the record, the Post is a corporate partner of MSNBC—and Clinton is MSNBC’s long-term target. Simple logic took over from there. So did Jack Welch’s vile methods.... ...But in this morning’s New York Times, a certain semi-sane op-ed columnist gets busy trashing Hillary Clinton—due to Obama’s bit of deception." By Bob Somerby. For a fun pic of that certain NYT columnist, see Blue Girl.

Michael Savage gets the boot: Four advertisers pulled their spots "after Brave New Films launched a campaign against [the] hate-radio host." Heh. Heh. Heh. Heh.

UPDATE: Al Gore endorsed gay marriage. Video at Raw Story.

[That's all...no more after the jump.]

There's more: "At the end of the day" >>

Top 10 of 2007 -- Wurlitzer Prize for Wingnuttery™

Since we started awarding the prize late in 2007, we added two deserving recipients who are standard bearers from the past week to our Top 10 countdown of exemplary honorees. Who is No. 1 in all of Wingnuttia? We think you will applaud but let's start with...

No. 10: I see nutheeng! -- One of two recipients from the Heritage Foundation, Nina Owcharenko can face the problem of uninsured children, and without batting an eyelash, obfuscate the situation. Nina trotted out the fallacy that the government program to cover uninsured children is expanding in order to -- gasp with us in horror -- drive children from private insurance! Oh, what an affront to the profits of the insurance industry! "The truth is various states have been pushing for an expansion of SCHIP precisely because, faced with spiraling increases in health insurance premiums, more and more employers are electing to drop dependent coverage and more and more middle class parents, confronted with the same price spiral, are unable to pay for private insurance." The parental nightmare: choose between paying for their children's health coverage or the mortgage. But, pish posh, neighs Nina. She canters on, her award teetering on her ideological rump, leaving a trail of road apples for the kiddies.

No. 9: The poor couldn't possibly be really poor -- That's what an elite fellow of the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, explained, wagging his finger at us little people. When "one in eight" Americans lack "enough money for the food, shelter, and clothing they need," caught in a daily "struggle with incredible poverty," Rector pulled out his scented hankie, dabbed his pursed lips before opining, Let them eat dirt. Rector's award for excellence in denying the truth about Americans living in poverty earns him a special booby prize in addition to the award -- a miniature guillotine designed to trim his lengthy aristocratic claws.

No. 8: I'm a useful idiot -- Bill Sammon of the Washington Examiner knows how to lobe a softball to Bush during a WH press briefing so the pResident Evil can chortle, "Now, watch this drive." Sammon's question, ”Mr. President, what did you think of the MoveOn ad?” With that, aWol launched into a tirade against the "Democrat" Party. “I thought the ad was disgusting. I felt like the ad was an attack not only on General Petraeus, but on the U.S. military....[blah, blah, blah]." For Sammon's efforts, he gets a brass-plated Kool-Aid sippycup inscribed with "D.C. Stenographer" to accompany his award.

No. 7: Wiping the ass of the GOP -- Home to the rants of crotchety white man Lou Dobbs, stenographer Malveaux, and groveling Wolf, the Cowardly News Network proves once again that liberal media is an extinct creature of mythical lore. In homage to their GOP favoritism during the presidential debates, the award comes with a magic CNN eightball that when shaken, always answers, "Carry water for Republicans or God will getcha!" They take the admonition Seriously.

No. 6: Harangutan Glenn Beck -- When Southern California burned, ravaging the homes of Republican-leaning Orange County and San Diego, a place where active duty and retired military also live, the right-wing nutjob of CNN poisoned with venom for the blue state -- and absent of fact-checking to whom he would spew his obscenities -- delighted in the inferno by announcing that "people who hate America are losing their homes today." A perpetual fountain of animosity toward liberals, environmentalists, Anyone Not A Wingnut™, Beck's bigotry earned him an award wrapped in a brownshirt for outstanding achievement in smearing non-Christians.

[Read on... the countdown continues after the jump!]

No. 5: War on Christmas kerfuffle -- Faux News & Friends hosted a curious holiday segment with the Catholic League's Bill Donohue as guest to kvetch about Huckabee's holiday campaign ad that "displayed an image of a white cross floating in the background behind the Huckster's head." WTF? Didn't the Flared Nostril realize there was a war on Xmas? How could he quibble with a cross, for chrissakes?! His "hypocrisy, partisan bias, and bullying are legion.... Donohue's hyperbolic media whoring and Judas act to progressives, Catholic Democrats, gays, Muslims, Wiccans, and Jews" tickles him pinko. "He excoriates or discounts anyone who disturbs his unbridled wingnuttery" and "Big Media, having given him a bully pulpit, turn a blind eye to his hypocrisy." For his yuletide performance and to complement his award, we bestow a super-size kazoo to play along off-key with the noise machine.

No. 4: O'shilling is me middle name -- NBC's Tim Russert never encountered a fact he couldn't dismiss or distort on behalf of his BFF, the Greedy Old Phonies. Describing Huck's victory in Iowa, he said that "the Republicans [were] embracing someone whose message was populist, and in terms of foreign policy, anti-George W. Bush." Wait a minute. That's not what Huck said: "I love the president. I've been with him on the war. I've been with him on the surge when Mitt Romney wasn't. So it's absurd to say that I'm against the president." Typical of Russert, his Meet The Press dog-and-pony show demonstrates an exercise in disregarding his buddies' misleading statements, allowing propaganda to flourish, and dissing Democrats every chance he can insert an attack. In special recognition, he receives a GOP-monogrammed chamois to polish his award along with the turds he serves up as journalism. Maybe he can use it to buff his brown nose, too.

No. 3: He's a Muslim (wink, wink) but I'm a slut -- He'll criticize others for spreading innuendo but when Chris Matthews does the same thing, he's oblivious to his brazen double standard. As a bona fide Hillary-hater, Tweety makes millions trashing Big Major Dems and he doesn't mind stooping to sexism to do it. He's been dissembling a long, long time. Ah, but he can't seem to cure his complusion 'cause he's in love! Republican he-men, Mr. 9/11, the Codpiece-in-Chief, and "Big Handsome" Fred Thompson make him swoon. We've re-engineered the Wurlitzer prize to accommodate a hidden compartment where Tweety can keep a bottle of smelling salts to use when he's overcome with the vapors. Should we toss in a hand towel for his, um, sweaty palms?

No. 2: Who can top Rudy!? Only Rudy Giuliani, a constant source of wingnuttery, can soar beyond himself like Icarus lifting on the thermal of 9/11 (video). He was for "socialized medicine" before he was against it, but Rudy's never liked facts much. He can out-howl the dogs of war louder than any banshee and he can scare little children and big people alike with terror, terror, terror. Oh, Rudy! "The serial exaggerator can't help himself." But when will he drop out of the race for the WH? His Wurlitzer prize comes rigged with a oscillating white flag. Maybe he will get the hint.

No. 1: Who's the wrongest wingnut of all? -- Taking the top slot, William "The Bloody" Kristol reigns as the King of Crap. For being spectacularly wrong as a pundit, the Gray Lady added him to her "stable of neocon stooges." I kid you not! With Bloody Bill "on board, the Nyuk Nyuk Times can whoop-whoop-whoop-whoop it up with the phoniest stooge of all. The infotainment value that a weekly dose of Bloody Bill can bring to Serious Punditry will surely elevate the laughing stock of the paper in the marketplace of Opinion as it bolts in the opposite direction of the nation's move toward progressive ideas. Who's next to [dis]grace its editorial pages? Ann Coultergeist? N'yaaah-ah-ah!" For such an colossal misstep, the sound of mailbox flaps banging shut on cancelled subscription letters lends a raspberry-induced a cappella to both the Times and Kristol's Wurlitzer Prize for Wingnuttery™.

Stay tuned for next Saturday's award to kick off the first honoree of 2008.

There's more: "Top 10 of 2007 -- Wurlitzer Prize for Wingnuttery™" >>

Pushback against the NIE on Iran

UPDATED AFTER THE BREAK

Over the past five days, the pushback against the NIE findings would amuse of it weren't such an indictment of our rotting press corpse compounded by the tragic consequences of a rogue presidency, Bushie's neocon sweeties, and the Repub intel committees that let the preznut run amok.

The usual wingnuts -- certifiable Bushwackos who ultimately make million$ reaching millions with erroneous infotainment news and opinion -- have lined up to discredit the NIE, the most unpoliticized and authoritative intelligence assessment on Iran in years. The mission: Protect their precious ideology and the worst president in U.S. history who continues to hype the Iranian threat. Ergo, trash the NIE, Democrats, the IAEA, ElBaradei, Europeans, and Bill Clinton to persuade people their Dear Leader's foreign policy isn't a national security train wreck.

A sampling of this week's propaganda about the NIE:

[Keep reading...]

* Steve Benen's Fox News roundup, a thorough report on Tuesday's contentious talking points from the Bushwacko Right.

* Crooks and Liars alerts us to the alleged CIA plot to subvert the Bush Doctrine authored by the head psychotic of the neocon ward, Norman Podhoretz, also foreign policy advisor to Rudy Giuliani. More in-depth details here.

* ThinkProgess dares to go where I prefer not to tread without galoshes for my keyboard ...further deconstruction of Podhoretz' reaction to the NIE. "He insisted the Iranians were very close to developing a nuclear weapon" and likens negotiating with Iran to the same effect that "Munich had with Hitler." See the TP Update for a creative conspiracy theory: It's a plot to affect the elections! Ooga booga!

* Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson leads us through the twisted minds of neocons gone ballistic.

* Emptywheel reveals John Bolton's warped history, one caveat of which was featured in a Dec. 6 Washington Post editorial, The Flaws In the Iran Report. More pushback on the IC's new sourcing rules used for the NIE. Plus, a nifty NIE timeline so you can keep track of who boosted what and lied when.

* Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation takes The Post's Al Kamen to the woodshed for his "snarky" hit job on the IAEA's Director General Mohamed ElBaradei and his remarks about the NIE. The quote with ouch from Katrina: "Maybe Kamen and his paper should set aside some time to reflect on how dead wrong they were in blasting ElBaradei on his Iraq assessment." Self-awareness dips low at the WaPo's editorial page so mendacity abounds.

* Bolton on CNN without a disclaimer... shameless. How can CNN advertise itself as "the most trusted name in news" and grant air time to an untrustworthy neocon kook? Dec. 4:

BOLTON: Well, I think it's potentially wrong. But I would also say many of the people who wrote this are former State Department employees who, during their career at the State Department, never gave much attention to the threat of the Iranian program. Now they are writing as members of the intelligence community, the same opinions that they have had four and five years ago.

BLITZER: President Bush says he has confidence in this new NIE, and he says they revamped the intelligence community after the blunders involving weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He says there's a whole new community out there and he has total confidence in what the national intelligence director is doing.

BOLTON: Well, I have to say I don't. I think there's a very real risk here that the intelligence community is like generals fighting the last war. They got Iraq wrong and they're overcompensating by understating the potential threat from Iran.

* More Bolton lunacy on Iran. See and hear him live raving at YouTube -- Dec. 4 on O'Reilly's spinathon in defense of Bush's Iranian warmongering despite the NIE -- Dec. 4 on CNN when Bolton slammed the NIE (excerpts above) -- his desire in August to attack Iran within six months -- earlier in June more warmongering against Iran for arming the Taliban (whom Shiite Iran hates) in Afghanistan -- and earlier in May, Bolton "hoped" that Iran would withdraw from the NPT or to expel IAEA inspectors. Bolton either requires medication for his delusions or he's a stone-cold sociopath. Take your pick.

* Tom Friedman's brain gasping like a hooked brook trout flopped from its cranium to lunge at parody -- an Iranian NIE on America -- that implicitly trivialized the American NIE on Iran:

As you’ll recall, in the wake of 9/11, we were extremely concerned that the U.S. would develop a covert program to end its addiction to oil, which would be the greatest threat to Iranian national security. In fact, after Bush’s 2006 State of the Union, in which he decried America’s oil addiction, we had “high confidence” that a comprehensive U.S. clean energy policy would emerge. We were wrong.

Stephen Colbert has absolutely nothing to fear.

* Michael Ledeen of the spin tank, the American Enterprise Institute, christens the NIE, The Great Intelligence Scam, at Pajamas Media. I decline to link to his scurrilous dreck so click here for excerpt and the link.

* Where's the ooey-gooey fudge factor with a wingnut center? NRO always delivers the goodies:

[1] If Iran was working on a nuclear weapons program until 2003, what does this say about U.S. policy in the late Clinton period and European engagement?

[2] Are [Democrats] now to suggest that Republicans have been warmongering over a nonexistent threat for partisan purposes? But to advance that belief is also to concede that Iran, like Libya, likely came to a conjecture (around say early spring 2003?) that it was not wise for regimes to conceal WMD programs, given the unpredictable, but lethal American military reaction.

[3] Two years ago, the [Intelligence Community] — the same IC that claimed to have detailed information about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, that famously missed the boat on al-Qaeda, and that has had at least two spy networks inside Iran rolled up in the past couple of decades — told us it was all but certain that Iran was “determined to develop nuclear weapons.” [Ed. translation: They were wrong then so they're wrong now.]

[4] What the NIE does not explain — what no one has explained — is why the world’s third-largest exporter of oil and gas needs nuclear power.... ...It’s no secret that careerists at the CIA and State have been less interested in implementing the president’s policies on Iran, Iraq, and North Korea than in sabotaging them at every opportunity. Sources close to the intelligence community question the objectivity of the NIE’s Iran conclusions, and tell us that three principal authors of the report are longtime critics of the administration’s policy who have axes to grind.

[5] The attitude among many people — like say, John Edwards — is that we dodged a bullet with this NIE. But that's only true if this NIE is right. Indeed, as a matter of national security, it seems to me one could make the case that it would be better for the NIE to be wrong the other way. That is to say, if the NIE is wrong, better it be wrong on the side of caution. Which would you rather: An NIE that says Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons when it really is? Or, an NIE that says Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons when it really isn't? How you answer that question probably says a lot about how you view foreign policy generally.

The last chewy nugget from Jonah Goldberg seems to justify dishonesty, the kind that led to Operation FUBAR in Iraq. Yes, such distorted morality shrieks loudly about one's foreign policy view.

I'm certain plenty more pushback against the NIE on Iran skips merrily along to a polka beat but I've got to stop delving at this point. My head hurts from propaganda overload.

Can't wait for what Lil' Tim (who's hosting Rudy!) and the roundtables of the Sunday funnies have to say. Serious talk about the success of the Bush Doctrine could upstage the key findings in the NIE. Wanna bet?

Know of other NIE wingnuttery? Leave your picks in Comments. I'll post an update.

UPDATE: Digby (with a h/t to Josh Marshall) noted "the administration was changing its focus from WMD to Iranian influence in Iraq as a justification for the war they insisted must be waged." Summing up, Digby writes (with emphasis):

It seemed obvious to me that the Iran obsessives were working hard to build a case that even if Iran didn't have the bomb, it had declared war on the US by killing our soldiers in Iraq and we had to start bombing them post-haste anyway. Kyl-Lieberman was clearly designed to further that goal, no matter what Clinton and others say about it now.

Their problem seems to be that The Man Called Petraeus's surge has resulted in a decline in violence and urgency about Iraq --- and they couldn't hold back the NIE any longer. (It would have leaked before long with all this warmongering going on.) They finally had to admit that they couldn't get this defective casus bellis off the assembly line.

They knew. A whole bunch of them knew, even that nutcase Ledeen.

Which makes the pushback the empty rhetoric of gnashing teeth.

There's more: "Pushback against the NIE on Iran" >>

Wurlitzer Prize for the Week Ending 12/1/07

The envelope, please... and the Wurlitzer goes to... the Cowardly News Network!

Ordinarily, we award the Mighty Wurlitzer prize to blatantly brain-numbing right-wing stupidity, bigotry, and falsehoods perpetrated by an individual wingnut -- past recipients like Rudy Giuliani or Ralph Peters of the New York Post. Every now and then, we have to look at the insidious encroachment of distortions, lies, misleading information, half-truths, and overt propaganda that infiltrate a mainstream press in giving preference to Republicans. GOP appeasers, if you will. So prepare yourself for an in-depth post on the subject covering the past few days.

This week we witnessed how a cable news network cowers, bends over and offers itself up to right-wing bullies who take full advantage. Yes, CNN, the Cowardly News Network, caved in to the threat of GOP opinion thugs who intimidated the news org to not only capitulate to wingnuttery, but also apologized and censored itself on behalf of the GOP. We've seen this kind of timidity before in CBS when the network threw Dan Rather under the bus over aWol's lack of TANG service records... still MIA.

On any given weekday, CNN subjects us to the shrieking harangue of Glenn Beck or the xenophobic conspiracy theorist rants of Lou Dobbs. But this week, the Cowardly News Network sunk to a new low in groveling for the GOP.

[Keep reading...]

CNN'S DON'T ASK, DON'T TELL POLICY
During the Nov. 28 CNN/YouTube Republican debate [transcript], retired Brig. General Keith Kerr asked the GOP presidential contenders to address the question, "...why you think that American men and women in uniform are not professional enough to serve with gays and lesbians?"

Following the debate, wingnuts huffed and puffed -- It was a plant! A Hillary plant! -- claiming that the Clinton campaign was responsible for Kerr's question. Never mind that the General is gay himself and personally knows of the destructiveness of the gays in the military ban. And ignore that Fox News political field producer Jake Gibson talked with Kerr to confirm that the General ...

"was not contacted by the Clinton campaign to do this," had appeared at the debate without the prior knowledge of the campaign, and did not work for the Clinton campaign. Further, Gibson reported that Kerr told CNN that "he's done no work for the Clinton campaign" and that the Clinton campaign stated that Kerr "is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign."

Fox News blog by Carl Cameron reiterated just hours after the debate that Kerr had "done no work for the Clinton campaign," was a member of the Log Cabin Republicans and spoke on behalf of himself. On the morning after, CNN's John Roberts interviewed Kerr and discovered that the General had made no campaign contributions to Hillary and actually had "supported several Republicans this fall." As for his role on Hillary Clinton's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender steering committee:

KERR: I have not done any work. Several friends asked me if I would allow my name to be listed and I agreed because she is such a strong advocate of gay and lesbian rights.

ROBERTS: So this really hasn't required anything on your part other than lending your name to it?

KERR: Correct.

ROBERTS: Now, did anyone from Hillary Clinton's campaign or from the steering economy or anyone else associated with a political organization put you up to the idea of asking this question?

KERR: Absolutely not. This was a private initiative on my own.

ROBERTS: So why did you want to ask this question?

KERR: I wanted to ask it because I wanted to focus attention on the damage that "don't ask, don't tell" currently does to our military readiness. Every day, the Department of Defense kicks out two or three talented gay or lesbian personnel. And we're talking about intelligence specialists, surgeons, nurses, doctors, 58 Arabic linguists since 9/11.

Kerr went on to explain, "As a matter of fact, I supported several Republicans this fall," one that involved a San Francisco fundraiser at which he contributed to the campaign. BTW, he's a registered independent.

So what did CNN do before they gathered the facts about the gay General? They deleted Kerr's question during the rebroadcast of the CNN/YouTube Republican debate in the wee hours of Nov. 29. Got that? They banned a legitimate question posed to Repub candidates on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy. What a bunch of fucking wussies. Can CNN spell, c-o-w-a-r-d-l-y?

Oh, but CNN didn't stop its backtracking by censoring itself. The executive producer of the debate, David Bohrman, also a SVP of CNN, issued an apology just after midnight on Nov. 29: "We regret this, and apologize to the Republican candidates. We never would have used the General's question had we known that he was connected to any presidential candidate." Unbelievable! And this from a news organization executive? You would think CNN would, you know, investigate further before apologizing for a question posed by a Log Cabin Republican who's supported several Republicans this fall. Can CNN grovel any lower?

WWJD
Also during the Nov. 28 CNN/YouTube Republican debate, Tyler Overman from Memphis, TN asked, "I have a quick question for those of you who would call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty, what would Jesus do?"

If you read through the debate transcript Gov. Huckabee never answered the question, WWJD? He talked about his challenge as a governor in administering the death penalty, oh, the agony of the decision, his support for it, and how he reconciles executing criminals with being pro-life. But not once did Huck address WWJD? Nada. When moderator Anderson Cooper pressed Huckabee for a direct answer, "Would Jesus support the death penalty?" Huckabee quipped, "Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office, Anderson. That's what Jesus would do." Slick, huh?

However, during the post-debate discussion, Anderson Cooper heaped platitudes upon Huckabee despite the fact the governor failed to answer the WWJD question. Media Matters (with emphasis):

Following the debate, Cooper asserted that Huckabee's reply was "certainly, probably one of the best answers you could possibly come up to, to that question" -- despite the fact that Huckabee, who has repeatedly invoked Jesus Christ and Christianity to explain his position on matters of public policy, did not answer Overman's question and Cooper's own follow-up.

While Huckabee -- who did not object during the debate to the "what would Jesus do" question -- did not say what he thought Jesus would do with regard to the death penalty, he routinely uses his faith and Jesus to talk about public policy matters.

More at the MM link. Can CNN ingratiate itself to Repubs any further?

GOT GOTCHA?
Now that David Bohrman apologized to the Republicans for Brig. Gen. Kerr's question, what about an apology to the Democratic candidates? Always the watchdog, Media Matters documented the Republican "gotchas" during the July 23 CNN/YouTube Democratic debate:

...in anticipation of the Republican debate, Bohrman reportedly pledged to weed out questions that "you might describe as Democratic 'gotchas' " from those asked of the Republican candidates. But as Media Matters also noted, CNN gave no indication that it applied that standard to the Democrats' debate and, indeed, selected possible Republican "gotchas" such as the following, in which the questioner echoed the enduring Republican myth that Democrats are taxers and spenders: "I'd like to know, if the Democrats come into office, are my taxes going to rise like usually they do when a Democrat gets into office?" The Boston Herald reported in a July 25 article that Bohrman said of the debate: "I think it worked. The questions were really good. The feeling and the energy of the program felt really good."

In addition to the question about taxes, the Democratic candidates were asked the following other possible Republican "gotchas" at the July 23 CNN/YouTube debate, as Media Matters for America documented:

• To all the candidates: Tell me your position on gun control, as myself and other Americans really want to know if our babies are safe. This is my baby, purchased under the 1994 gun ban.

• My question for all the candidates: How do we pull out now? And the follow-up: Are we watching the same blankin' war? I certainly wasn't a big fan of the invasion/liberation. It sickens me to hear about soldiers wounded and getting killed daily, not to mention innocent Iraqis, but how do we pull out now? Government's shaky; bombs daily.

Don't you think if we pulled out now that it would open it up for Iran and Syria, God knows who -- Russia -- how do we pull out now? And isn't it our responsibility to get these people up on their feet? I mean, do you leave a newborn baby to take care of himself? How do we pull out now?

• My question is for Mike Gravel. In one of the previous debates, you said something along the lines of, "The entire deaths of Vietnam died in vain."

How do you expect to win in a country where probably a pretty large chunk of the people voting disagree with that statement and might very well be offended by it? I'd like to know if you plan to defend that statement, or if you're just going to flip-flop. Thanks.

• I'm a proud serving member of the United States military. I'm serving overseas.

This question is to Senator Hillary Clinton. The Arab states, Muslim nations, believe its women as being second-class citizens. If you're president of the United States, how do you feel that you would be even be taken seriously by these states in any kind of talks, negotiations, or any other diplomatic relations? I feel that's a legitimate question.

At this date, David Bohrman has issued no apology to the Democrats. Laziness? Bias? Or just another day of the refs working over CNN to the benefit of the GOP?

Jamison Foser provides a comprehensive roundup of CNN's double standard if you have any doubts why the Cowardly News Network deserves this week's Wurlitzer. I'm sure the award will look befitting on CNN's mantelshelf in the space where once it displayed brass balls.

If there could be a Wurlitzer runner-up, the prize would go to the ever-obnoxious Queen of Wingnuttia, Michelle Malkin, for running around screaming to the ethers... "Da plant! Da plant! Da plant!"

Yeeeeeesh!

There's more: "Wurlitzer Prize for the Week Ending 12/1/07" >>

Michael Moore Takes Down Wolf Blitzer and CNN

I waited all night for the full video to come out on YouTube, but so far it hasn't. I want to direct you to RawStory. Watch the video of Wolf Blitzer's interview of Michael Moore at the bottom. When I watched it last night it was completely unedited. It runs about 10:00. Moore's take down of Wolf Blitzer, Sanji Gupta and the rest of Corporate News Network is classic.

I would direct you to the CNN version, but it has been edited.

There's more: "Michael Moore Takes Down Wolf Blitzer and CNN" >>

Media Hand Terrorists Major Victories In London and Scotland

Three failed terrorist attacks in England and Scotland have lead to a world wide media outcry: British police arrest five after car bomb attacks; In Depth London Attacks; Islamic group claims London attack; Attack on London; U.K. Police Make 5th Terror Arrest; Fifth Arrest In Britain's Terror Scare and so on, endlessly repeated across the known world.

Folks, it seems some really dumb terrorists tried to start fires in London and Glasgow. They failed in London, but succeeded in Glasgow. No innocent person was hurt. One would be terrorist was killed and another injured in the Glasgow attack.

Somewhere in Pakistan Osama Bin Laden is smiling. For the cost of a handful of home grown religious fanatics, three automobiles, a couple of crappy cellphones, a few bottles of petrol and propane, and with the eager complicity of CNN, MSNBC, BBS, News Corp and damn near every newspaper on the planet, his movement has struck fear in the hearts of people everywhere.

Here in America Rudy Giuliani is also smiling. Cable news has proven once again that it can be stampeded by really dumb terrorists threatening English speaking, white people. His flagging campaign was given a real boost.

In other news KUNA is reporting that today, July 1, 2007, two Iraqi policemen were killed and five others were injured, including four high-ranking officers, in a suicide bomb attack that targeted a security check point in Fallujah.

CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC, CBS, BBC and all the rest of you, please get a grip. What happened in London and Glasgow is a great day in Iraq. At least no innocent bystanders were killed.

There's more: "Media Hand Terrorists Major Victories In London and Scotland" >>

Wishful Thinking?

Screen grab from CNN International around midnight last night ET



CNN says Bush Resigns. What's CNN's motto again?

There's more: "Wishful Thinking?" >>

Huge Portion of Iraqi Population Displaced

Good Lord... CNN reported this morning that 2 million Iraqis have fled the country and are now considered refugees. 2 MILLION. Iraq has a population of about 26 million people; that means that approximately 7.5 percent of Iraq's total population is displaced. Does anyone else think that this is a HUGE number? Of those 2 million displaced, 700,000 are in Jordan, making up 10 percent of that country's total population - 10 PERCENT.

The United States is a country of about 300 million. 7.5 percent of our country's population is 22.5 million - 22.5 million Americans living in Canada, Mexico (if we could get past our own border agents), and Latin America. 9,333,334 Americans would be in Canada alone, which would be about a 30 percent increase in that country's population if the numbers were proportionally increased (relative to Jordan's refugee intake).

Nice work, W.

There's more: "Huge Portion of Iraqi Population Displaced" >>