Fox news on Maliki: Irritable or Independent?

* athenae:

"We've got a week, and that's it. And I don't know about you, but I want a hell of a lot to change. I want my party to oppose that which its platform dictates it oppose. I want my party to speak for those of us who voted to put it in power. I want my party to make good on every fevered nightmare of the radical right, because I want them to know what it feels like already, and most of all, I want my party to give me an accounting of what has happened to my country.

I want to know who we've detained, and why. I want to know who we've sent away, and to where. I want to know who we've killed, and what we plan to do about it. I want to know who wants to hurt us, and how we're going to stop them. I want to know who doesn't have enough to eat, and how we're going to feed them. I want to know who isn't safe, and how we make them so. And most of all, I want to know that what has happened in the past six years will never, ever, ever happen again.

I want the fear of God put into those responsible for the neverending stream of hatred that comes out of our radios, and I want a government that stops pandering to the most bloody-minded among us and starts doing its job. I want leadership that sees people wading through chest-high water dragging their possessions in garbage bags and does not shrink, does not shrug, does not go back to its breakfast. I want a country that can turn as much of its attention to its fellow citizens as to its video games and I want politicians who I pay and who I elect to stand up and start shouting about that kind of country until somebody fucking hears it and starts paying attention.

I want a Democratic majority. I'm under no delusions that this will accomplish all of the above, but it will, at the very least, stop me from adding to the list of dissatisfactions, crimes against democracy, egregious stupidity and financial gluttony."

* glenn:

"I really question whether someone who has obviously made it such a high priority to obtain a very personal form of right-wing absolution can possibly exercise appropriate news judgment. If Halperin is willing to expend this much time and energy and shower Hewitt with such gushing praise -- and if he's willing to make such a public spectacle of himself when doing so -- all in order to convince Hewitt that he isn't liberal, won't that goal rather obviously affect Halperin's news coverage? Isn't there something extremely unseemly about the political director of ABC News engaging in such an intense campaign to win the approval of one of the most blindly partisan, extremist Bush followers in the country?

Mark Halperin is really showing his true colors here, and it is extremely unpleasant to watch. Part of me really hopes -- just for the sake of Halperin's dignity -- that he sends no more pleas to Hewitt and that he stops seeking benedictions from the likes of Sean Hannity. But ultimately, it's necessary to put one's personal concern for Halperin to the side because this exercise is truly revealing. The need of journalists to please right-wing extremists and convince them that they are good and fair is very pervasive among the national media, and Halperin's highly emotional interaction with Hewitt is placing a high-powered microscope on how that dynamic works. As ugly as it is, it is highly instructive."

quite foul. read the rest if you dare.

* glenn has more here:

"In sum, Halperin, in one interview, illustrated the crux of the sickness of the national media -- every tenet of right-wing mythology, embraced. Every opportunity to debase himself before Hewitt in the hope of getting a little head pat as one of the Good Boys, seized. Every left-wing bogeyman, bashed. Every right-wing hero, glorified and praised and treated with intense reverence.

Poor Hewitt and his right-wing comrades. How do you maintain your sense of victimhood and persecution at the hands of the "MSM" when the Mavens and Lords of the "MSM" do nothing but crawl around, agree with you and embrace your entire world-view?"

* Fox news on Maliki: Irritable or Independent?

* Aravosis:

"There's a battle going on just beneath the pre-election radar that involves some of the issues you've read about recently on this blog, and it seems that Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee are trying to start a witch hunt against the Democratic staffers who have successfully fought back against some of the greatest idiocies of this past Congressional session.

After accusing a Democratic staffer of leaking the terrorism NIE that helped show the American public just how bad a strategic error Iraq continues to be, and revoking his clearance and smearing his name without a shred of evidence, House Republicans then announced a plan to investigate all Democratic intel staffers, including phone logs, email, and all other 'relevant' records. The staffer has signed a sworn affadavit that he had nothing to do with the leak, but in the face of such Republican perfidy, it's having little effect. These McCarthyist tactics -- and I don't use that description lightly, but this staffer was accused without any apparent evidence, on a political basis, and has been the target of physical threats and baseless vilification -- are yet another example of the shameful and harmful politicization of intelligence.

Republicans are afraid of the U.S. knowing just how badly they've governed, especially when it comes to Iraq, the war on terror, and the intelligence process. Their panic and retaliation in this case is a sure sign that they are willing to do ruin innocent, hard-working civil servants to cover up their failures of leadership and government."