Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section
Page 4 of 5   <       >

Targeting Murtha

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

At American Prospect, Greg Sargent challenges the notion that our soldiers in Iraq want to stay the course:

"Here's a poll of actual troop attitudes taken last February, before some of the worst violence of the war hit:

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.

"The poll, conducted in conjunction with Le Moyne College's Center for Peace and Global Studies, showed that 29% of the respondents, serving in various branches of the armed forces, said the U.S. should leave Iraq 'immediately,' while another 22% said they should leave in the next six months. Another 21% said troops should be out between six and 12 months, while 23% said they should stay 'as long as they are needed.'

"Beware this emerging storyline. If and when the Dems start pushing for a change of course in Iraq, the wingnut spin will be that the Dems and bureaucrats in Washington are out to betray the hard-working troops abroad. When that happens, it'll be interesting to see whether the conservatives claiming to speak for the troops point to any actual, you know, evidence of what the troops actually think."

Doesn't even guilt by association require an actual association? Check out this HuffPost screed by Steve Young:

"Would we be able to hold Bill O'Reilly, in any way, culpable in the case of the Woodland Hills, California man, Chad Conrad Castagana, who was arrested for mailing threatening letters laced with white powder to Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer and 'Late Show' host David Letterman, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and other high-profile political and entertainment figures.

"At first glance, this would seem the case of just a far right kook who wanted to scare the Secular Progressiveness(TM) out of a bunch of left wing moonbats(TM). If blame for placing the Traditionalist(TM) bull-eye on these liberal elites was due, than you'd have to bring in the entire AM talk radio dial for an interrogation, which wouldn't be so bad.

"But at closer look, there is more than a hint that Chad had gotten his marching orders from one Lord of Loud in particular. While Pelosi and Schumer might have shared the wrath from any number of right wing talkers, only one has added David Letterman as embodiment of the Hate America First(TM) SPs(TM) and had laid blame at Stewart's doorstep for the potential killing of Christmas . . . The Culture Warrior(TM) himself . . . BILL O'REILLY.

"And when you add O'Reilly's chief nemesis since Franken had the last legal laugh, Keith Olbermann to the stack, it's not hard to imagine that Bill might have penned the hit list himself."

Gotten his marching orders? Might have penned the hit list? This is ludicrous.

In a new blog, Recovering Journalist, onetime Post reporter Mark Potts observes:


<             4        >


© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive