I've been waiting for this. As much as I've tried to not watch news programs since November, I'm going to have to grab this and devour it, then show it to my friends and family. Let them see for themselves how they were played this past year. Good job Zig.

When will we understand that these are not "journalists" but revolutionaries spearheading a putsch?

Finally, John, a non-incendiary, well-written review. Does the movie tell me what is in it for GE, owner of NBC, Viacom owner of CBS or Disney owner of ABC? Why did they choose to trash Palin and by doing so belittle their man McCain? Isn't the real cabal in the laps of the men who run these publically held companies? Are they interviewed in this expose? If not, your movie may be interesting, maybe even chilling, but the real story is way, way, way far away from the bit players who appear in this movie. When you have something that gets to the real story–why publically held media giants wanted to destroy their man McCain and take out Palin for any future runs, please let me know.

The sad part is that Brian Williams, Katie Couric, Charlie Gibson, et al get so much airtime. Regardless of your politics, how could anyone with half a brain believe anything these people have to say?
http://the100mostannoyingthings.blogspot.com/

This is amusing. It's now all the media's fault for hurling only softball questions to Obama, while Palin got all the "hardball" ones like……. "Which magazines do you read?"

Wow, if Sarah Palin can't deal with Katie Couric, how do you think she'll do with the terrorists?

Media coverage ain't fair, deal with it, crybabies.

If you think Palin is qualified to lead this great country, there is something seriously neurologically wrong with you.

PDS = Palin Delusional Syndrome

America is being ruined by Media / Liberals / Obama cult followers…

El Gordo:
You are exactly right! Bush never attempted to personally intimidate and destroy his critics. But then, this is what the Left has always done. Look at what happened to Linda Tripp or Ken Starr. Very few people can stand up to that kind of demonization. I'm really, really hoping that Sarah Palin has one thick hide….

Hey LoBlo, your classy liberalism is showing. Go bow down to your man, fetch his water, wash his feet, etc.

I cannot WAIT to see this. Watch how the media try to squash this film, and try to keep as many people from seeing as possible. It is time we the people stage our own media revolution and take back our airways, newspapers and magazines.

Thanks for the review, John. I'm getting a copy of this.

Also, "the rancid heart that beats beneath the blow dry" is an awesome turn of phrase. Now I'm wishing I'd thought of it first.

What is up with all of the articles on this site being about Republicans as victims? This site is so depressing and whiny! I thought Big Hollywood would cover entertainment from a balanced, conservative perspective. But every thing here is about how evil and terrible the left is and the suffering of Republicans/conservatives.

Sarah Palin as victim? What Republican isn't a victim to you? Palin is hardly any one's victims. She gave as good as he got. She lost. That's politics. Obama got hit repeatedly with the Reverend Wright and Trinity stuff. He won.

I just can't see Reagan or Goldwater whining this much. This is what drives me nuts about my fellow conservatives. This constant victimization schtick has got to end.

Never thought I would EVER say this, but Joe Biden was right. When it comes to Obama, he's making rookie mistakes. But the left never gave Bush the excuse of having 'rookie mistakes'. WHEN YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED 'ROOKIE MISTAKES'!

Haha, moron? He's doing all the right things according to A HUGE MAJORITY of the American public.

Did I mention A HUGE MAJORITY.

But not to you, because you probably voted for George W. Bush, probably even twice, and every American, republican or Democrat, is going to pay dearly because of people like YOU.

Obama may never fix the economy in four years. It may take decades. It took Bill Clinton two years to get America out of the hole that George H. W. Bush put us in, but it was nowhere near as deep as the hole George W. Bush put us in.

But at least Obama knows what he is doing and has the right people on the job. McCain had Phil Gramm, the guy who claimed this was just a "mental recession" and we're just a nation of "whiners" – the man who is almost entirely to blame for deregulation that led to this crisis was McCain's chief economic advisor.

On the other hand, perhaps you really do want America to implode like the Soviet Union in the 80's, in which case your confidence in McCain/Palin would've been a reasonable choice.

I couldn't stand it when the Lefties jumped on Bush needlessly and I don't like it when conservatives do the same with Obama. The man has only been in office less than 30 days. It's hardly fair to blame him for this economic crisis.

Part of being conservative is supposed to be about owning up to one's faults and taking responsibility. This country did not get into its current financial mess just because of Democrats. We conservatives had a large say in creating this situation. The same old story about the evil liberal media is getting old, old, old. It's hard to believe in this boogieman when Rupert Murdoch owns Fox, the NY Post, TV stations in most major markets, and the large presence of conservatives on the radio, not to forget the existence of sites like this.

I keep waiting to hear conservative leaders offer real alternatives instead of politicking and but nothing is being said. All I hear from Congressional leaders and pundits is that we must fight the Democrats. Great! But that seems like a zombie-like call. Where is the real leadership? Do Jindahl and Barbour understand how silly they seem when they say that they want to turn away unemployment cash to desperate people?

I have hard working family members who have lost their jobs. They are looking for answers not finger pointing and whining about Sarah Palin. My mother loved Sarah until she watched the debate. Sarah's refusal to answer questions or use standard English turned her off. Palin's lack of command of formal English is not the fault of the media.

Never intimidated critics? So, when Valerie Plame's status as a CIA agent was leaked to the press by someone in the Bush Administration , it was a huge coincidence that her husband was a Bush critic?

Part 2 to the lovely, but dumb-as-rabit.

Economy: Get some facts, it was the CRA, Fannie and Freddie and the Dems clever scheme to cover up all the bad loans they made by spreading them out in the loan bundles they sold. THAT is what has crashed the system. Mortgage backed securities that are bad. I was a mortgage banker for four years. I know the business. You can also thank WWII for ending the Depression. Historical note: Hoover was President during most of the Depression and there was no TV.

Obama and terrorism? He has convinced many Americans that he can get cooperation from our enemies with charm. He can't. He can't because most Dems do not understand why they attack us in the first place. And it's not Bush. Mind you, they attacked us three times BEFORE Bush became President. It's because in their eyes we are corrupt and Godless. They want us dead.

You amuse me.

Leaked by Richard Armitage, a holdover from the Clinton years and no friend of Bush. Amazing how the narrative continues unmodified even after the truth is known. And talking about Plame without mentioning how she manuevered her non experiecienced husband into the assignment that brought the negativity don on him is trying to create new realities by leaving out important parts of the truth. No was Armitage ever charged because it wasnt a crime!

This particular article is a review of a film that dares to prove that the elephant in the room is real. It's not whining. It's making a case. The media were in the tank for Obama. Here's proof. Where's the whining?

To say such a thing indicates a certain amount of naiveté. I would not think that the head of a major corporation would or should care what the product is but only about the bottom line. One can hire any number of lower payed shills to worry about product content. If the money comes in the CEO is happy. As it should be.

[...] poetry. That gets filed right in the “I wish I had said that” department. The writer is John Nolte, from the indispensable new blog “Big Hollywood,” where one can always find something [...]

hee hee, you just get more amusing…

1. It took Obama three weeks to DOUBLE the national debt that it took Bush eight years to accumulate.
2. We ARE a nation of whiners. You are illustrating that point in a mighty fine way.
3. I believe nationalizing the banks is a pretty 'soviet' move. Wait, that's Obama's move.
4. You like to use the word "huge" a lot. Pretty Freudian of you. I'm just sayin'…

Nothing but nothing will change the simple fact that the Bush gang had so messed up things that the American public wanted a change. They voted for what they wanted with or without the MSM, which still has any number of conservatives magazines, tv shows, and newspaper owners….The raving GOP people commenting here simply have to get over it: yhou ran a lousy two candidates and olffered nothing that was much different from 8 years of a terrible president.

uh oh, A mole. Gunnar you are very poor at disguiseing your leftism.
It is completely ignorant to believe that owners and CEOs care about content. They do not a should not. Bottom line and only bottom line. But, then who expects a socialist to have the first clue about economics. Your jobless friends children are going to have to pay for the Government spending money it doesn't have. That is what socialist do "Give it to me now and to hell with the future and my kids"

(and how can you take someone who can't even spell rabbit correctly seriously?)

I don't think many would argue with you that the Republicans ran a lousy presidential candidate. I'm still not even sure how he emerged from the primaries victorious. I had written him off much earlier on. The (not raving) GOP people knew we had a weak candidate, but we also saw the press pushing Obama and covering for his shortcomings. It was an uphill battle which only drew closer when Palin's vice presidential candidacy was announced. Then McCain's campaign made the fatal error of suppressing a natural attack dog and kept her under wraps for too long. And the press eviscerated her.

It was time for "change" again; 8 to 12 years is all a party seems to get anymore. Frankly, I'm relieved all the crap is falling on the Democrats now, because they richly deserve it. It's nice to have the pressure off of us while we regroup. Our turn will come again. I just hope my country is still recognizable by then.

Has anyone thought about organizing a boycott against all advertisers that use the MSM (ABC,CBS and NBC, MSNBC, and CNN for sure, maybe others) like so that we can either cripple, kill or change the MSM from doing the harm that they are doing to our country? I think with a little bit of exposure, millions of people would join in a boycott. I think about this all the time and have come up with a couple acronyms for the cause but I do not know where to enlist support or how to get this organize. I would appreciate comments.

I think Obama must have been really disappointed when he found out there were really only 50 states. I bet he thought Bush and Cheney stole some on their way.

Though just think of this and pray everyday for Obama – President Biden…

Oh, dear John. Don't you know? The Dolchstoßlegende always reads better in the original German.

This was tedious writing…..the first 4 paragraphs all say the same thing…I got too bored to finish.

Wrong on all counts. The leak came from a political gadfly in the State Dept. Not anyone you could rightly call "from the Bush Administration. Try digging a little deeper for you facts than US magazine.

Don't you people have any new material. those are the same talking points from years ago. We know the truth about those thinks now.

"and for what?"

Victory. That is what. A free, prosper and democratic Iraq that is an ally of the United States is worth how much?
For your information we did Iraq on the cheap. The spending on the liberation and securing of Iraq and Afghanistan has amounted to 7% of the federal budget. 7 cents on the dollar spent by the Feds. What was the other 93 cents spent on?

I feel like I got a bloody nose. That hit the mark. If the Republican party actually showed that they stood for something, it might have made all the difference in the world.

I'm afraid, however, we're entering an era of "Big Ideas". Sadly, most of those got us into a world of hurt in the last century.

Oh please, rabit..do you think Biden would have been asked about "what 3 policies of Bush's policies.. would you change"? Heck, why would any journalist ask that ? That's not even the VP's duties, so WHY ask something that stupid, something that would NEVER happen?

Would Biden have been asked about Supreme Court decisions? Of course not… And those are "softball" questions?

I just put my credit card back in my, (very empty wallet), after buying 2 copy's of the vid. One for me, and one to send to Crissy ("tingle") Matthews.

Do you think he might watch it and share it with his friends?

Not Over.

Oh my, you are as cluess as rabit. However, you are far more coarse. The Freudian thing is called a joke. You see, he implied my brain is small. I, in turn, implied that he was obsessed with size. Does this help? Probably not, since you used the word 'zillions'.

to continue…FDR had promised that "Your boys are not going to be sent into foreign wars." FDR wanted us in the war and knowing that it would be inevitable, justified the comment privately by stating "If we're attacked, it's no longer a foreign war." The later charges against him that he "allowed" the attack on Pearl Harbor in order to get us into the war were not far-fetched. Probably they were untrue, but plausible. This quote from "The Lion and the Fox" sums things up nicely: "It was a major failure of American democracy that it was not able in the late 1930s to provide jobs for its workers and food, clothes, and houses for its people. What Roosevelt could not achieve World War II would achieve…it was a personal failure for Roosevelt too."

Amazing fact-less universe you conservatives live in. Thank god America is getting sick of you people.

Richard Armitage is a big fat blabbermouth but Bob Novak said his source was Karl Rove. Karl Rove said "Valerie Plame is fair game." It was Karl Rove who verified that Plame was a 20+ year undercover CIA operative. It was Karl Rove and Scooter Libby who called up other reporters to try to get them to blow Valerie Plame's CIA agent cover.

Oh wait, now I thought you conservatives said that Plame was just a low-level secretary, not a high-level undercover spy working on nuclear weapons proliferation. Dayam, you freaks of nature never stick to your own facts.

What an amazingly current survey from 2006. Gee, nothing at all has changed in Iraq since 2006, has it, rabit?

If we want non-current surveys, hell, CNN even reported that in 2003 83% of Americans were "confident" and 65% "proud" of the War in Iraq: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/18/poll.wars/...

Undeniable truth, rabit.

You make the point of freedom of thought, why then are you so worried about this documentary attempting to show how the media fights against it. And if Gunner is stating a conservative view point in your opinion it only shows how far left you are.

Your are uninformed except for what you read in left wing media. I pity for you because it is small minds like yours that are first extinguished in a totalitarian Government.

You are funny though, as with all liberals you love to call people names which is the bastion of the vapid and vacuous.

Here's one from last month.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

This thread has been a perfect illustration of how leftists "debate".

A long string of ad hominem and strawmen with almost zero discussion of what the original post was all about (media bias and how it effected the election). Typical leftist distraction.

At any rate, on one hand I'm looking forward to this hitting DVD. On the other I'm sick and tired of being pissed off all the time and I somehow doubt this documentary is going to leave me less angry than before I watch it :p

I'm also feeling more and more that a very dark time is coming. The division and downright hatred I see brewing in this country is beginning to frighten me. I'm having a harder time seeing how left and right can peacefully co-exist in America (especially with a left that goes out of its way to abandon logic, reason and even basic human decency).

"Willing" isn't the same as "Wanting".

May I send you a dictionary?

And for you too. Here's one from last month.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=...

Isn't it a shame you conservatives are too lazy to use The Google? Got all your junk-food information force-fed and your brains atrophy, you lose the ability for contextual thought, and start blaming Democrats for everything that happened while republicans ran the White House and Congress – which is about a decade.

– "You make the point of freedom of thought, why then are you so worried about this documentary attempting to show how the media fights against it."

LOL, I never really said one single word one way or another about the documentary. You just made some crap up.

– "And if Gunner is stating a conservative view point in your opinion it only shows how far left you are. "

No, it only shows how little you know of what conservatism means. It has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of Sarah Palin, or of any candidate in particular, or of your favorite color or the type of music you listen to. If you've embraced conservatism without understanding what conservative values really are, then it's about as meaningful as your favorite sports team, and you're just spinning in someone elses filth.

Actually, if you look at GDP numbers, the war rescued the US Economy, not the New Deal. Look it up, facts are pretty interesting things.

PS-What in BO's background makes you say he was qualified to be elected President?

Part of the problem was that Palin was introduced and thrown into the public / media square way too fast. Usually when politicians who potentially could become President of the US are introduced to the public with no time to get to know them they will be defined by the media and by those who dislike them. People will look at them with major scrutiny.
I say this as a liberal but also as a human being. This is the way people / critics/ media are.
Obama on the other hand was introduced to the public 5 years ago at the Democratic Convention before he was yet a Senator. He had years to build support. Palin did not.
Look right now at some young Republican stars. Jindal perhaps? He has time to get name recognition in a positive way. Even though he will be hated by some [all politicians are] in 2012 he could have decent support – like Obama did.

Willing for American troops to leave. Wanting for American troops to leave. If you are trying to play a game of semantics, you will lose.

But at least Obama knows what he is doing and has the right people on the job.

Yep.. who better to run the Treasurey Dept than a Tax Cheat
Who better to run homeland security than someone suspected of having hired illegal immigrants…

Illinois politics at it's finest.. on a national scale.

What are you? 12 years old? See response above.

The most recent poll in Iraq was the provincial elections, in which the remnants of the Baathists were soundly defeated and Prime Minister al-Maliki — who just negotaited the continued presence of US troops — was seen as the big winner. So maybe Iraq is a little more complex than you think.

hahaha, if that was true than Valerie Plame would be in jail now for perjury, for claiming that she was a 20+ year, very high-level, undercover CIA operative in charge of investigating and assessing nuclear weapons capabilities abroad, and that her job involved traveling abroad frequently.

And the head of the CIA also said she was, officially, an undercover CIA agent.

Therefore, she was an undercover CIA agent and you're wrong.

Do you understand you are wrong?

Do you understand the meaning of the word wrong?

Cause, you are it.

What do you have against American heroes like Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame?

The best part of this fine whine? Rather than address the reasons the GOP has suffered substantial losses in the last two election cycles, Zieglar allows everyone the more facile comfort provided by the simplest of all explanations. It's the Media's Fault!!

Now that this is the same Media that held sway during both of G.W. Bush's victories seems to have bounced off a couple concrete brainpans. But no matter. Whether in Germany in 1919 or in the USA now, it's always easier to blame somebody else.

Enjoy!

Seriously, read the article whizbang links to below. Here's a quote:

"The [Bush oversight of Fannie and Freddie] plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt — is broken."

1.5 trillion, and this is in 2003. You need to update your figures, hoss.

As for CDS, lessee … who signed the law that made CDS exempt from regulation?

Wow! I can't believe how many kool-aid drinkers we have here. Didn't Fox blast anyone who opposed Bush, called them unpatriotic and if you not with us then your with them? Now we have the rest of the MSM this time around bowing down at the feet of Obama, even going so far to purposely suppress important tid-bits of information. It sounds like their is a concerted effort to keep the truth from us from both sides of our great political system and I wonder who might be the ones behind it all. Who would have the most to gain from keeping the American people divided and at each others throat? Maybe the CEO's are NOT just interested in the bottom line, maybe they like the power they wield and the influence they have on the American people. I'm just saying that while we keep finger pointing, what is the REAL agenda here?

Somewhere in your jumble of claims and links, you said that Iraqis were happier under Saddam.

I can't tell if you need a survey of news sources or a cult deprogrammer.

"… same as FDR needed but more."

Qua? Are we living on the same planet? In what way is the current financial crises so much worse than the Great Depression that a president would need to outstrip New Deal spending? Have you spent a lot of time on a bread line lately? Riding the tracks hobo-style? Packing up your family and fleeing the dustbowl?

But you yourself admitted that they "belittle… McCain". Thus, there are only 2 options:
1) there is some huge, bewildering conspiracy of the Republicans to get Obama into office
2) the paradigm that all CEOs are ipso facto republicans is false

Warren Buffet and George Soros alone should prove #2. Your own reasoning above is further proof. Look, here's more proof:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/suzanne-stevens/ceo...

Let's face it, the idea that republican+business is alike to bacon+eggs, peanut butter+jelly is fundamentally false. McCain wasn't "their man". The man of the CEOs was Obama.

You're the one who's coming off as juvenile Gilman. The 'Big Bad Republican CEO' is a myth. Sure, a lot of CEO's are Republicans but a lot are also Democrats. Wall Street gives to the Democrats 2 to 1. In fact, I'm sure a lot of those CEO's love the Democrats right now…who else would actually pay them for sucking at their job. They allowed themselves to be bludgeoned into submission by bureaucrats and now they are Washington's personal bitch. Get a clue and stop worrying about the old stereotypical boogey men.

I can't help but see a resemblance between Barney Frank and Chris Matthews in the way they mouth their words. And Matthews gets tingles up his leg from other males…

You had a dumbocrap operative Fitzgerald investigating the no crime comitted Plame incident knowing full well it was "Clintonista" Armitage who blabbed her identity but continued the "witch hunt" in attempt to ensnare someone in the republican administration. Now you have the same Fitzgerald investigating Blagojevich, another dumbocrap but pulled the plug curiously premature as deal was conducted. I guess he had to bring it all to a halt before the trail led out of Chicago to washington.

PeterPike, you're only showing yourself to be a dimwit.. Go find the Valerie Plame Congressional hearing on YouTube, watch the whole thing. It's all there. I'm amazed you even think you're qualified to comment on anything if you're too lazy to spend the few moments to utilize the amazingly vast resources of the internet to find something as trivial as this.

Wow, you totally win with that iron-clad, razor-sharp argument. You must be smart or something. I bet you write fiction……or something.

I agree, which is why I included him. All the authors I listed have achieved success, but none of it is "breakthough" in that it's considered the definitive work by enough people to make a real difference. I wish more people read Bernie's stuff, but although he is popular, it just isn't enough against the din of misinformation.

The numbers were rising well before WWII started. That's a fact.

What in Obama's background qualified him to be president? He was not among my top choices but I came around because (A) he taught Consitutional Law for 12 years – someone who understands the Consitution inside and out came to me as being extremely crucial in getting the country back on track.

(B) Despite the cards stacked against him, he managed to run a brilliantly conceived and solidly executed presidential campaign over the course of two years, and that is hopefully an indicator of how they're administration will function, and America simply could not afford to have another administration as inept as the last months of McCain's campaign.

And (C), Obama is capable of discussing complex issues clearly and concisely, and who doesn't insult the intelligence of the American public. The fact that he's done that non-stop for two years without major mistakes that conservative media could pick up on (besides that "guns and God" statement), is an a real trial-by-fire for any potential candidated.

I'm being absolutely honest here but I realize I ain't gonna change anyones mind, and I don't really care either. Conservatives have their own little communities where they desire self-affirmation for their upside-down worldview and it's fun to poke my hand in once in a while to watch them scurry.

Actually when you take out Govt direct expenditures out of GDP, the private GDP did not recover until the WW 2 years. Go back and do the data review again.

BO was a part time law instructor, not a Constitutional Scholar. He did not publish in one academic law journal during the entire 12yrs as a part time instructor.

Real constitutional scholars would laugh at your assertion about his legal background. He also practiced law part time as he was a full time politician and perpetual candidate.

The cards were stack against him? He recd more money to run his campaign than any other candidate in history. And, he did not run his campaign, he gave speeches.

He is an adequate speech maker, when he has his teleprompter handy. He even needs it to do press conferences. Why do you think he is becoming know as President UMMM?

You see what you want to see. The stock market sees the real BO and it ain;'t buyin it.

You poke your hand and we kind of laugh at you since you have no facts to offer.

Face it the guy is an empty suit and investors already know it. They are heading for the exits./

Oh the President is popular. Well, not with investors, as they see themselves and their 401K go away. Think the world is optimistic now that your boy is here. Not likely.

BO's got the ball, but not the balls.

As the zen master says" We'll see!

You have a slobbering problem, don't you? Scooter Libby committed perjury and *someone* in the Bush Administration committed treason. Those are facts, come get some.

As to Blagovech, the guy is disusting and creepy, shame on his constituents for voting for him. But what the Bush/Cheney White House did to one CIA undercover agent is the very worst kind of treason, more than a crime against one individual within the spy community but a crime against ALL of America, because Valerie Plame's very job was to monitor and assess nuclear weapons programs in places like Pakistan and North Korea.

More importantly, it says to every individual who has very delicately maintained their undercover status over decades in order to assure their effectiveness at inteligence gathering, and their own personal safety as well as of all their informants, they know that they cannot trust the government anymore if the information they bring back doesn't meet the political party's desires.

Anyone Plame and Wilson are two American heroes and that's really all that is to be said on that matter. Ever.

I dont think its that complicated. John McCain was the Left's darling until he got the nomination. The fact he was so bipartisan he ticked off his own party compared to 99% straight Dem votes for Obama didnt stop the media from portraying BO as post partisan and McCain as the guy who voted with W "85% of the time."

The moment it was clear he was the nominee, McCain became John Insane and grampa and the guy who couldnt use email. Reaching across the aisle gained McCain absolutely nothing. It doesnt matter how Palin would have been introduced.

Sheldon, please read Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. I know it is a tough go but you can probably get someone to translate if for you.

This is really funny….if you read/listen to the liberals, most of the 3 letter accronyms listed are all right wing media, with FOX being the worst. If one takes you view point, there is only one conservative outlet amongst the evil liberal media empire. But the question is: with all of our bickering, finger pointing, name calling, and insult tossing are we not missing something? Do people honestly think that the CEO's giggle at the thought that they have so much control over the minds of Americans. Look, there is an agenda here to keep all of us dazed and confused with anger at each other, why? Can anyone answer that without freaking out that I'm not trying to bash rep or dems?

Wrong German term, El Gordo. When it comes to Zeiglar and Nolte? Try 'Dolchstoßlegende.'

Google it.

I did not say you were Juvenile. I said your name calling was juvenile.
But twisting the meaning of words never has been a problem for socialists.

Directly from the article you referenced:
"A spokesman for Rove's legal team, Mark Corallo, said that Rove did not even know Plame's name at the time he spoke with Novak, that the columnist called Rove, not the other way around, and that Rove simply said he had heard the same information that Novak passed along to him regarding Plame."

"Novak said he is talking now because Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald told the columnist's lawyer that after 2 1/2 years his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to Novak has been concluded."

And no indictment no charges of any kind.

Waa Waa Waa

And besides, no one cares about this anymore. Come up with something new.

From the (last) article you posted there Herr Bunny: " Al-Dabbagh told Associated Press Television News that Iraqis had been worried about a quick U.S. departure. "

That is clearly not the same thing as "3/4 of the population of Iraq want US troops out of the country as you stated was the "Undeniable truth…".

My question to you is : Are you disingeuous or illiterate?

No, that´s you after 2000 and 2004.

I know you are but what am I?

Well played, sir.

Someone said in an earlier post that one of the options in interpreting all of this was that the Republicans were involved in this pro-Obama thing. That actually could be true. I was an Obama supporter before I realized something was really wrong with the media. At that time a Democrat, even before Iowa I noticed some funny business not related to the media going on among the Republicans that had me wondering, and I chalked it up at first to them being concerned their guy wouldn't win. The thought did cross my mind after digging a little further that for some reason they might want Clinton to win the nomination, but that didn't really make sense since she wasn't Republican. But later it dawned on me it might have been Obama they wanted. I still don't entirely understand why, but nearly all of DC voted for him in the general election. Hardly any other state had those kinds of skewed percentages. I don't discount the CEO theory, either. It just looks more complicated than that.

– "Somewhere in your jumble of claims and links, you said that Iraqis were happier under Saddam. "

Yes, you heard me right. And it doesn't need saying, really. Even under an evil, greedy dictator like Saddam, and under sanctions, they had a higher quality of life than they do now, what with barely functioning electricity and fear of being killed by insurgents or randomly shot by private contractors.

No, instead of actually getting rid of their lunatic fringe the Democrats lied about what they were going to do. Obama told everyone what they wanted to hear and it was absolutely crucial that the media would not call him on his countless contradictions. Everything the Republicans said about him turned out to be true.

Webb is not deviating from the party line, on spending or anything. Webb is not going to question the appointment of judges who will reinterpret the 2nd amendment. Only Republican senators go against their party on a regular basis. Dems march in lockstep. Ever noticed that?

To call the Dems centrist is Orwellian. The tactics may be clever, but this is not a football game. We will all pay for this madness.

DC always votes blue by a large margin. Look it up. Government workers vote for people who vote for more government.

Palin was targeted?

Hey, if Bible-Spice can't take softball questions from the likes of a creme puff like Katie Couric, she shouldn't even be in the game.

What Palin says at the end of the trailer: "This is for the sake of democracy that there is fairness in this other branch of democracy, if you will, in the media."

Look, I like her, but how can she say something like that? That's the argument the left makes for censoring talk radio. I don't think she is qualified precisely because she says things like that, but then again McCain would say that kind of thing too, to say nothing about Obama, whom the same media found to be perfect and godlike.

You're singing from the same hymnal as the rest of the pack. That it has more to do with ideological wishful thinking than reality is something that may or may not come clear to you in time. It's much the same with the ideologues on the Left, btw. LIke you, they are absolutely convinced in the evil and madness of the other side, and will contribute little other than inchoate anger to a process that would benefit from, even demands, its absence.

I am so eager to see this, even though the thought of going through all the lies and filth a second time around is very difficult for me.

Thank you for your review.

Yeah, no doubt it will be the box office blockbuster "Expelled" was.

No, a generation of Americans that lived through the Depression and WWII dispute that FDR got us out of the Depression. The American people got the American people out of the Depression…

Stop changing the subject.

Did Obama not contradict himself constantly, moving left and right at will? Did he not lie about almost every issue? Did he not make sure his website would accept foreign money? Did the press not cover for him in each and every case? Is he not turning out to be every bit as left-wing as predicted? Big government, class warfare, agitating against the rich, pro-abortion, soft on terrorism and dictatorships, feckless abroad, bypassing institutions and process, obsessed with attacking dissenters, petulant even as he gets everything he wants. Did he not promise ethical and transparent government? Where are the signs of that? Is he not trying to control the census and therefore the electoral process? Where are all the critics of the "imperial presidency" now? Are you saying you are not a liberal?

You are not going to answer any of these questions.

Aside from Palin's triumphant performance at the Republican convention she also succeeded beautifully during the Presidential debate, only to be met by Katie Couric's smug post debate remark "at least Palin didn't embarass herself."

IF any of the movie is true?

Have you been living in a box the past 6 months/year? Did you not see what was done to Sarah Palin and the open campaigning that was done for Obama?

My God. When things are THAT blatant and yet people question it, what more can even be done?

From the way Chris Matthews described George W. Bush as he swaggered on that aircraft carrier to announce "Mission Accomplished," you'd think he was about to hump the president's leg.

Unfulfilled, much?

Those aren't questions those are badly constructed slogans you borrowed from Sean Hannity. I'm sorry, man, but that's utter nonsense. Did he lie about every issue? Gee. I'm going to say no. Is he soft on terrorism or dictatorships? Gosh, I wonder what Musharraff would say about that? That's just two from a very thin bunch.

But I get that you believe this like a fish believes there's nothing more to the world than water. So be it. But let's not waste each other's time trying to prove otherwise.

How ironically unfortunate for you to call yourself factFinder, someone who's clearly willing to distort facts, to pick and choose or completely ignore Robert Novak's own statement, that Karl Rove was inded his White House source for the article.

But factFinder proves he cannot be trusted because he is either stupid or a liar.

Patrick Fitzgerald determined that Armitage indeed told Novak that Joseph Wilson's wife worked in the CIA, but he found no evidence whatsoever that Armitage knew that Valerie Plame was a high-level undercover CIA agent.

Big difference.

You have failed in your duty to provide facts.

Most of them will tell you that the war effort was necessary, but the plan was flawed. I think that's a fair assessment. What is certain is that Iraqis deserve the same economic opportunity and government representation that anyone else does. I would hope that you agree, regardless of the political implications.

I absolutely do agree, but do understand that the total cost for the Iraq war has been projected to the multiple trillion dollars. Iraqi's deserve stability and economic independence, but NOT by sacrificing our own.

America's priority #1 should be AMERICA!

It's puzzling that there should be any debate about that.

El_Gordo – for some reason your post is not showing up but I did receive it in my email. To answer your points:

I thought we were discussing the media and its unabashed distortion and cover-up of what ever seems to push their agenda be it either socialism, fascism, capitalism, etc. I am not an Obama bidder by questioning the motives of the news corporations CEO's, "absolute power corrupts absolutely". During a different time in this great nation, questioning everything was part of being an American and considered patriotic. I think we take too many things at face value in this country and don't dig deeper because we can't count ANY of the news networks to give us the UNBIASED truth.

As far as Bush's speech, you proved my point exactly! He may have said that quote in a much larger context after 9/11 but what was repeated over and over and over again, being used by the media, FOX news in particular but also popped up on CNBC occasionaly, was the unpatriotic label to anyone who dared question the Bush administration. I have taped many house of FOX news during the build up of the Iraq war with the "if your not with us you must be with them" used to poke jabs at the naysayers, even going so far as to call them "terrorist lovers". But this also was being used all over the blog-o-spher, the newest form of new media.

I have now beef with Bush, he did what he could during a very difficult time in our nation's history but we're not talking about the past or current president, we're talking about the media bias that does swing both ways. I think it is traitoris to not have the back bone to look at our media with open, unbiased eyes to see the crap they are throwing down our throats and the divide they have helped create in this great land.

Yes Des you are right of course.

The problem is that the number of people that will see a 115 minute presentation on politics or read a 300 plus page treatise on the subject already know the score.

To breakthrough it's got to be boiled down to a 20 second slogan and you have to get some wannabe rockstar VJ to say it on MTV. The problem is the masses don't care and without a media source that everyone goes to we don't have the capability.

John, thanks for the tip. I have now bought the DVD.

BTW – talk about the price this nation is paying because of media lies, is anyone but me very nervous about what the stock market just did today? (And is threatening to do tomorrow even worse?) Lord, it's not enough the media got the big Zero elected – now the economy is turning into one itself. Oh, lord, my joke last year about going survivalist isn't as humorous as it once was.

I think there has always been a media bias to the left. Journalism died long ago, it's just become glaringly obvious during this last election. As someone pointed out now we're talking about the big elephant in the room. Kudos to Obama his campaign was run extremely well. McCain's seemed a little disjointed at times (I was disheartened to find out he would be our candidate).

Obama not only had the media in his pocket he had them rooting for him. Come on, "hope and change that everyone can believe in," is one of the oldest political mantras you can find. Yet this time the media bought in and pushed it religiously as if it was some brand new idea no other politician had ever pushed for. For all of his "transparency," where are his school transcripts, I'd like to read his college Thesis.

They chewed up Hillary and spit her back out in full force. When Hillary Clinton is pointing out the media bias for Obama you know something is seriously wrong.

Rev. Wright pretty much sums up how in bed the media was for him. An out spoken American hater. Obama only "recently" realized this once it came into the public view.

What about the pass that the first lady got with her statement that her husband running for President was the first time she had ever been proud to be an American. Incredible! the very first time she had ever been proud to be an American. There should have been a media frenzy over this statement, but after hearing what Rev. Wright thought about Americans I guess I can understand where her attitude comes from.

Sarah Palin was routinely attacked for comments made by Tina Fey on Saturday Night Live. I didn't see satirical comedy about having 57 states or fire side chats on TV before they were in use.

Joe the plumber asks one question and the media can suddenly do some fact finding. They can sift through the dirt when they feel so inclined.

Rabit… let's try this again.

2001 – 2003 = (when the first warnings about FMac/FMae got put out: House (rep), Senate (Dems) – The Senate was the one that shot down the regulation (dunno why the Reps. didn't bring it back up in '03?)
2003 – 2007 = Republicans had control of both Senate/House. Republicans went into "spend happy" mode in '05 (03-05 showed some control, but focus was on War in Iraq, not domestic spending).. got them ousted in 07 with spending habits from 05 to 07.
2007 – 2009 = Democrats in control of both Senate/House… and we see where that's gotten us.

So in effect, the Dems held the Senate (who is "officially" supposed to be the one in control of the purse-strings), for 6 of those years.

So take your pick as to which years were the full-scale recession setting years? The 05-07 spending republicans or the 07-09 spending Democrats?

Sheldon Also:

This is infact why it is actually the "small business man" that is the Republican and not the corporate CEO. He is the guy most hurt with the most to lose. IF you don;t believe me listen one Sunday to a local financial planner or real estate lawyer show see if you can guess the political leanings of the local businessmen that call or better yet take the time to go to a Rotary meeting and just listen to what the off hand polical comments are like.

1. Look, over 10 million more people voted for Obama, a huge majority of states/electorates, and substantial Senate/House losses to boot. Are we discussing semantics? Obviously the Democrats won a big victory over the Republicans in the last election.

2. I take it by this statement that you think Bush's record DID NOT have to with the win, which is just silly.

3. This is not an answer to anything, the 90% figure is from your imagination?

4. I take it by this that you say Fox is MSM. Fox is clearly biased towards the conservative side. Do you fault them for that? I'm sorry if you get your electoral news from MTV and Nickleodeon.

5. If you are suggesting the WSJ is comparable to a trade journal like a welding magazine, then you are extremely confused about its readership. You don't need a degree in economics to read the WSJ, especially its extremely conservative op/ed pages.

That fact that you blame economic cycles and conditions on presidents proves that you have little understanding of the division between the government and the economy. In your mind, the president pulls magic levers, pushes buttons, and barks commands that mysteriously makes the economy work.

Here are some basic, fundamental facts that you need to chew on:

- The government treasury and the economy are separate entities (except for the new artery created by Obama).
- Before Bill Clinton left the White House, the economy was already declining into a recession, which George W. Bush inherited. See the point above to understand why I don't blame either president.
- The only direct influence the government has on the economy comes through the federal interest rate, increases in the money supply, and the tax rate.
- The theory of increasing GDP (basically, the economy) by taxing the upper class and giving money to the consumer is called Keynesian economics. This is what Obama plans to do. It has never worked for any economy in history. Supply side economics, on the other hand, has worked every time it's tried, which includes JFK, Reagan, and George W. Bush.

Outside of those facts, having a different perspective is fine, but blaming George W. Bush for the current mess is proof that you really have no idea what has happened. Right now, placing blame contributes nothing to the solution, but if I have to blame anyone, it's Barney Frank (D-Mass) for promoting unchecked support and investment for Fanny May/Freddie Mac. Bush had even criticized the unwise lack of scrutiny of the well intended yet foolish policy.

O man is qualified to lead based on what? the guy never ran or lead anything – oh; that is right he was
a community organizer AND so are the gang leaders!!
The man has never done anything except run for political office and spout the 'public service' bs
line that all career politicians expouse. FDR didnt get the US out of the depression – THE PEOPLE
IN THE US DID!!!!!! Government basically prolonged the depression for years with ill thought
out programs. Hard to take anyone serious who actually thinks anything Krugman says makes
any sense. You must be a joy to be around with your sanctimonious attitude.

Beth, I am so unimpressed – your post makes you look like a putz
what does a masters from cal have to do with anything, would be about as
stupid as me saying I have a doctorate from Marquette(which I do)

stick you your points and drop the drivel – you are doing well without the garbage stuff

No, but she lived it. She taught me the skills she learned to survive with during the Great Depression. None of what she taught me included having my hand out to the Government for a bailout.

Another day, another post disappears into the ether. Really guys, can we get this fixed eventually? It's more than just a little frustrating to take the time to post, only to find it gone the next time you visit the site……

…..And then back the next day.

No, of course not. Cause neither she nor you have ever drawn a welfare or a social security check, ever. Good for you!

– "O man is qualified to lead based on what? the guy never ran or lead anything – oh; that is right he was a community organizer AND so are the gang leaders!! The
man has never done anything except run for political office and spout the 'public service' bs line that all career politicians expouse."

Short answer: Because the American public says so.

Deal. With. It.

Obviously, intelligence is not high on your list of qualifications for the White House if you ever voted for Bush.

– "FDR didnt get the US out of the depression – THE PEOPLE IN THE US DID!!!!!!"

Oh they did? And they just waited until FDR just to make the republican look bad, huh? hehe

– "Government basically prolonged the depression for years with ill thought out programs. Hard to take anyone serious who actually thinks anything Krugman says
makes any sense. You must be a joy to be around with your sanctimonious
attitude."

Krugman has been predicting this economic crisis years ago, people like you were calling him delusional then. Why do you think that is?

You probably used words that were too big for cjenk to understand, the filter didn't want to offend.

Would it stop Obama from seeking a third term, claiming we didn´t do enough? Who knows.

Please don't say that. You're going to give me nightmares.

Actually, having lived in DC, I have to tell you that DC votes blue because it's almost entirely black.

But the rest of your premise is correct, government employees (workers really isn't the right word) do vote overwhelmingly blue.

LOLOL…..This column proves that politics is show business for ugly people. So far, Zeigler has previewed an amateurish documentary that lacks any sense of drama, i.e. thesis and anti-thesis. His so called movie appears to be only thesis. That is called propaganda, son. It is a lecture, very similar to Al Gore's documentary on global warming. And in either case, global warming and Sarah Palin are both bad for the future of our planet.

Of course it was a failure, given that FDR couldn´t end the depression for 8 years. Imagine having double digit unemployment every year from now until 2016 (in 1940 we had 14,6 %). Sounds like a failure to me. Would it stop Obama from seeking a third term, claiming we didn´t do enough? Who knows.

Claims? LOL. I said it was an amateurish production. The the guy does not know how to make a movie. It may be a terrible thing that the media is liberal (and free), but it takes more than a thesis to make a movie. You may like it. But for me, a flick has to do more than scratch an itch.

Yeah, but remember, the News Media hated Bush like poison during both election cycles. The Dems were just lucky enough to find a gifted candidate this time.

Oh hell, Harley, I'll give you two examples from 2000. The press reported as fact a spurious Gore story that Bush associates were using subliminal suggestion to associate Democrats with "rats" in September of that year. Once the Democrats and their media partners successfully planted the meme, they pushed it down the media food chain. It was all a huge crock, but the media peddled it as fact.

The DUI story has a bit more complicated provenance, and is actually Bush's fault. He could have lanced that boil back in 1999, but he and Rove took a stupid pill. Any way, the D's found out about an arrest he had back in 1976, for God's sake, and the news media sat on it until the last weekend of the campaign-when the Gore people in Maine covered their tracks by leaking it to, of all people, the local Fox affiliate. It was actually quite unimportant as it related to 2000.

The notion that the media is unbiased is laughable. They are not. Their bias in favor of the Democratic party is both transparent and nearly criminal. This press bias is one of the factors that is destroying trust in the press as an institution.

Palin is hardly any one's victims. She gave as good as he got.

Really? When did Palin "give" anyone anything equating to opinion columns that she should have aborted her child? How about hundreds of internet posts about her not being her son's real mother? Or that she endangered his life by flying against doctor's orders? Or book banning? Or calling Iraq a Holy War? Or that she cheated on her husband?

Seriously, there are hundreds of these all coming from people who are at least on the fringe of the MSM (including the NTY and Atlantic Journal). Could you point out a single time that she said anything relatively as harsh to anyone, anywhere?

Aren't you the same troll who said he was a Conservative? Just pathetic. Grow up.

Man, posting here is a crap shoot.

I posted a nice long response to cjenk here and it seems to have disappeared into the ether.

I'm too tired to type all that again.

I had to laugh a B). Anyone who thinks Obama had "the cards stacked against him," is clearly not in touch with reality. Mike Murphy called Obama as the Democratic nominee in mid-2007. He ran far to the Left to raise money and cut out Hillary's support from underneath her, then ran to the Center to pretend it's really who he is to get elected. He didn't "run" his campaign, David Axelrod did, so I guess people like Rabit think that Axelrod is actually the one qualified to be President.

Rabit went on to exaggerate Obama's legal career and ability to discuss complex issues. Evidently Senior Rabit is unaware that 6 years ago, Obama was an undistinguished Illinois State Senator most famous for voting 'Present' more times than anyone else. He won that office by taking the previous Democrat to court and getting her disqualified (since he couldn't actually beat her in the battle of ideas). He won the Illinois Senate seat by the Chicago Tribune "mysteriously" finding his opponent's sealed divorce records and releasing them to the public, revealing nothing illegal, but something embarrassing to force the man to resign.

You know, I think that's a resume that should make us all proud to be Americans. When a man can rise from corrupt political circles and racist preachers to higher office without ever making any political change, merely by utilizing the legal system to disqualify opponents? Then using fund-raising he promised not to (and forgot to ask for information from internet donors to prevent fraud), he raised triple his opponent and used that HUGE (in honor of Rabit) advantage to sabotage his opponent with misleading ads. Somewhere I'm sure that MLK is smiling knowing that someone has taken the principles he fought and died for, and done this to them…..

Thanks for your answer. That comments system is driving me crazy.

You can be assured that I don´t trust any media entirely. I just think that the explanations for their failings are much simpler and more obvious: herd mentality, careerism, opportunism and so on. Political ideology, too, but there is no mastermind. Some people live in a bubble and if you are a journalist, it is most likely a liberal bubble.

Star journalists like Thomas Edsall (WaPo) and Mark Halperin (ABC), no conservatives themselves, have admitted that newsrooms are dominated by liberals (25 to 1 in Edsall´s quote, 5 to 1 in Halperin´s). Evan Thomas of Newsweek said in 2004 that the press was rooting for Kerry so hard, it had to be worth 5 % of votes. And he is not a conservative either. This fits exactly my observations.

The media calls the shots in the Democrat party.

When Hillary was the main nominee, she could do no wrong. When the media decided that Obama was the new nominee, Hillary was flayed in short order. All of a sudden news stories that had been buried for years were given new prominence and played over and over. Bill Clinton, the fair haired One, was suddenly represented as a red-faced, angry freak.

Want Obama to fail? When the leftist media decides he is ready to fail.

I don´t need a documentary to know what I saw and heard last year. And it is a cheap shot to insinuate that anybody here is calling for government censorship. Just shows where you are coming from.

In other words, there is nothing that was said that was false. You just want to "LOL" and make fun, for reasons that only you would know. Perhaps to get people's minds off the content of what was said?

Case closed, then. Goodbye.

First someone said I fancy myself an intellectual and now i'm a putz. Does anyone actually read the posts? I was making a point that one should never assume that someone who objects to a post has no basis for that objection. As in: I happen to know a lot about terrorism because fighting it is what my husband does for a living. And to negate someone insulting him as a dimwitted member of the military – which he is neither – I was gave HIS credentials. I was also trying to use humor to lighten the snotty tone that 'rabit' was taking. But at least I gave you an opportunity to mention your degree. Perhaps it is writing or literature and you could give is non-intellectual putzy posters a lesson in conveying sacrasm.

What the hell are you talking about? Musharraf was gone months before the election. Don´t you follow these things? As I predicted, you cannot answer the other questions. And btw, since I live and work in Europe, I can´t watch Hannity. Next time, you gotta try harder.

Indeed.. Rush doesn't pretend to do the news. His is an opinion show.

These other twerps pretend they are just reading the news, no bias at all.

Give me a break. If you do op-ed, don't lie and call it news.

Hey, he did visit 58 states.

I haven't even hit 50 yet.

I saw Ziegler with Matt Lauer and have little hope this is going to have the intended effect. He was defensive, vague, and came off like a partisan hack. I couldn't believe he went in for an 8 minute interview with Lauer on National TV without a single example of anything Matt or anyone on the Network said that reeked of bias. By the end of the interview he sounded like any other guy trying to sell a project. Very disappointing.

[...] Exclusive: Big Hollywood first look at “Media Malpractice” [...]

With all due respect: I call strawman argument. The GOP is not bleeding because of the press. The GOP is bleeding because of its own manifiold sins. When it produces good policies and good politicians (like Palin, for example), it wll be back. The press didn't "turn" on Obama. They buried Wright once Obama explained things away in his Philly speech. Come on. Obama was their guy.

You haven't watched MSNBC much, have you?

Tom Sowell, Walter Williams, David Brooks.

Actually that is true. My Grandmother did not benefit from Social Security because she got a pension for being a teacher. Teachers, Railroad workers, and Hospital employees were exempt from paying and therefore receiving any Social Security benefits until the mid-60's. BTW my Grandfather worked for the Railroad – MKT – no Social Security benefits either.

I always like how libs such as rabit tell part of the story but leave out the most important fact.

Perhaps you are too stupid to understand what I wrote above, but let me repeat it again for the benefit of the more intelligent people who might read this.

Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald did not prosecute Richard Armitage because he could find no evidence that Armitage knew of Valerie Plame's high-level covert status. He only told Novak that she was employed by the CIA, as many tens of thousands of people are who are not covert status.

Karl Rove was Robert Novak's White House source for Valerie Plame's covert status.

Which is an interesting dilemma for you conservatives who still think all this fuss is over a desk clerk.

cont. … Bush´s quote was taken out of context by his enemies, to paint him as a kind of proto-dictator. Everywhere. Since I live and work in Germany and can read the German press, I can assure you that they pretended that he was talking about Germans, when he obviously was not. That´s because outrage sells. But there is not great plot. A German correspondent in Washington simply lives in a deeply Democrat area and meets mostly other journalists (who are bound to be liberals), reads the NYT and the WaPo and frequently steals from them (yeah, laziness is another factor). Who is going to call him on it?

So excuse me if I cannot get too worried about Fox, which by the way I cannot see. I can only see CNN international and the BBC. I´m well in the liberal bubble. But I do like to read openly conservative mags like National Review, City Journal, Weekly Standard, Standpoint and so on because you know exactly what they stand for.

Des, it's you who do not have the facts. That banner was placed there on the request of the White House.

As always, the facts are on my side.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/printout/0,881...

Time Magazine, November 2003:

The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

What do you have to say to that, Des? The facts are always on my side.

I'll say I heard it directly from someone who was on that ship. I'm glad you put all your faith in Time (a magazine that has had Obama on 10 covers in the last year), but as a news source, they are no more reliable than Fox, MSNBC or any other organization. Trust them if you want, but you have provided a story, not a fact.

Notice they gloss over "Senior White House officials" and "The White House conceded," and "Bush aides," but don't name a person (other than Wesley Clark, who is an extreme partisan). Sorry, I'll believe my friend, not an anonymous column from a Left-wing news source.

– ""Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.

Yup, you're right….no partisanship there. "

Right, indeed. Your best example of an "extreme partisan" statement by Wesley Clarke is saying "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." An "extreme partisan" statement ould have to include a blanket condemnation of a political ideology, and you're pathetic example is neither remotely partisan nor false.

An example of an "extreme partisan" statement might be something like "conservatives obviously hate America because they bankrupt the country anytime they are in power."

See the difference?

Did some of the posters here fail reading comprehension? It is very simple. As Mr. Nolte said, it is not a typical documentary, it is strictly the media's own words, their news clips laid out, back to back. You get to form your own opinion, IOW. Geez, how stupid do you have to be that this is too difficult to understand?

Nothing that Wesley Clark, an exceptional American patriot and warrior, has ever said or written can be called "extreme partisan."

FROM CNN:

Retired U.S. Gen. Wesley Clark, a supporter of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, on Sunday questioned whether Sen. John McCain's military experience qualified him to be commander-in-chief. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who ran for president in 2004, questioned John McCain's qualifications Sunday.

"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.

Yup, you're right….no partisanship there.

As to the rest of your nonsense, I can show you the story of the person on that ship. He's a regular poster on the Dennis Miller boards, and explained the story a long time ago (another military officer was a guest on the show and backed up the story). As for the "facts" you have, what are they? As I said, you have an uncredited article from a Left-wing publication citing no sources. How exactly is that fact?

You are amusing, if nothing else.

What? No, I am suggesting he is a liar. I haven´t said anything else. What is wrong with you?

Oh, a joke. Why didn´t you say so. How is one supposed to know?