at least the troops do their jobs.

And just so we're all clear: my frustration for this president and this war does not spill over to the troops. I have the utmost respect for the men and women of the armed forces. That being said, I don't blame the political leaders who put them in a very difficult war. The troops are truly one of the best trained military forces in the world, but they're fighting an enemy that is on an entirely different plane than we can imagine.

We're fighting a war against Middle Easterners with a Western world mindset. I don't blame the troops for that. They do their jobs. I just wish the Bush administration had done a better at their jobs.

how about an admission that iraq had nothing to do with it, mr. president?

Just a few thoughts on the president's speech last night...

I understand mentioning 9/11 in relation to the war on terror, but let's get real, Mr. President. It's high time you admit that Iraq had nothing to do with that terrorist act. I also wonder what Republicans would do if a Democratic president used 9/11 as much as you all have over the past week or so. Talk about politicizing tragedy...

Personally, I think Bush is annoyed that people are questioning him and the decisions made throughout this war. I think he's annoyed that he had to come forward and explain his plans for Iraq.

While I and many others believe Iraq was a tremendous mistake in the first place, we all realize that we can't just cut and run right now. That's not the point. We're outraged at the endless string of empty rhetoric concerning this war that even Republicans are realizing aren't telling the whole picture.

I don't believe this administration was as forthright in explaining to the American public that we could be heading into a protracted conflict in Iraq. I'll concede that the entire conflict isn't as dire as Fallujah or Ramadi, but we surely are not getting greeted as liberators.

Bush tried to make the case that Iraq is the focal point of terrorism. Yes, I'll agree with that. But, Mr. President, you also should mention that it was NOT a hotbed of terrorist activities until you invaded. Personally, I think he wanted to establish a far away battlefield, away from U.S. soil, just to give him a place to fight. Iraq became that battlefield. The whole "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" makes me wince every time, given the realization that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 in the first place.

Yes, Mr. President, we are in this war and we must now win it. But don't for one second try to divert attention from the reality that Iraq is your folly. It is a war based upon false pretenses and vendetta.

All we ask for is some level of accountability in this war, Mr. President. You have acted with arrogance and contempt toward all those who do not share your view on Iraq. Your speech last evening was carefully measured, which I expect. But it still evades the central problem with your war in Iraq: we invaded a country for none of the reasons you outlined. American troops and innocent civilians are dying over a lie.

Sadder still, you continue to beat the drum of war without at least admitting you screwed up.

the obvious and embarrassing talking points of bush's spin machine.

Call me a cynic, but I'm betting tonight's presidential address is going to be as rife with as much bullshit as Baghdad Bob's "we're crushing the enemy" statements at the beginning of the war in Iraq.

As stateside support wanes for the efforts in Iraq, as military recruitment sags, as roadside bombs and SUICIDE bombers continue to kill Americans and civilians, President Smirky must now face the reality that we're not getting showered with flowers and candy over there.

Given the oh-so orchestrated moves and talking points being forced down our throats over the past few days, here is a checklist of phrases and allusions to listen for tonight:

* "Freedom is on the march."
* "...better to fight them there, rather than here..."
* Some sort of reference to 9/11.
* "They hate us for our freedom."

I swear, it's like the've taken a page out of Saddam's propaganda book as Iraq was getting toppled...repeat a lie often enough and people will eventually believe it.

Can any of you imagine what AM radio would be doing with all this if Democrats were out there, shamelessly using 9/11 as much as Karl Rove's stormtroopers have been lately?

I just saw Condoleeza Rice on the Today Show and she, almost right on cue, hit the first three points I just noted....all in one freakin' sentence.

I give credit to this administration for mobilizing such an organized spin machine. Too bad it all is being done to re-direct attention from the reality -- Iraq is a huge mess. Or is it? After all, how long as it been since "major combat operations" ceased?

Yeah, I already know what the Kennebunkport Cowboy's going to say tonight.

my head's going to explode.

You know, there's been so much going on in the news that I almost can't keep up. Terri Schiavo died a few months ago, yet she didn't really die at all, given the recent news. Half of D.C. seems to be playing some peculiar form of "say something stupid" Chicken -- Howard Dean says something dumb....no wait! Hostetler said something dumb....no wait! Dick Durbin says something dumb....no wait! Karl Rove says something dumb! As near as I can tell, there's a pool board hanging in some junior senator's office and everybody's got money on who's going to trump them all with the dumbest thing of all. My money's on President Smirky saying something with that half-wit grin of his, telling us we're winning the war in Iraq. I digress.

I'll see if I can sum up each topic quickly:

Howard Dean calling Republicans names -- GROW UP!

Dick Durbin's Gitmo NAZI comparison --SHUT UP! MORON!

Hostetler's "demon Democrats" claims -- Oi vey....

Karl Rove's 9/11 nonsense -- Fuck off (yeah, I said it).

The Supreme Court's ruling on Eminent Domain -- Assholes!

Jeb Bush's desire to re-open the Terri Schiavo 911 call -- She's dead! Let it go!

The Amendment to ban flag-buring -- First there's legislation to protect one brain-dead woman, now an amendment to protect a symbol? Yeah, that's what I expect of my federal gubment.

Ralph Reed's run for Light Governer -- So which casino are you shilling for this week?

Ed Klein's Hillary book -- It's interesting how quickly conservatives are rushing to get people to read this, yet not Kitty Kelley's book about Dubya. Hmm.....

Ken Tomlinson -- Your vendetta is nauseating.

That's all for now. I'm going to bed.

chairman mao would be proud.

It appears that Congress is working hard to protect Americans by making it illegal to desecrate an American flag.

Congress Nearing Ban on Flag Desecration

The Senate may be within one or two votes of passing a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag, clearing the way for ratification by the states, a key opponent of the measure said Tuesday.

"It's scary close," said Terri Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union , which opposes the amendment. "People think it's something that's never going to happen . . . The reality is we're very close to losing this battle."

Congress regularly has debated the issue since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas flag desecration law in 1989 and its own Flag Protection Act the next year. But until now, it has failed to muster the two-thirds vote needed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate before states try to ratify the measure.
Read more.

For starters, I have absolutely no desire to burn a U.S. flag in protest. Most people in this country, I would guess, are in the same boat as me. Nevertheless, the movement to prohibit the desecration of a symbol -– not a building, living creature, private property -– seems to fly in the face of freedom of speech and smack of idolatry.

I’m skeptical of any government that moves to protect symbols, rendering illegal an act simply because they find it “offensive.”

Hey, I find it offensive when someone burns a flag. But I’m also offended by crying babies and loud teen-agers in movie theaters. I find public displays of affection offensive. I find loud, thumping sub-woofers in cars offensive. I find Ku Klux Klan rallies in town squares deeply offensive. I find vehement protests outside abortion clinics offensive. I find that idiot “Dr.” Laura to be wholly offensive.

But I would never -– EVER -– advocate a constitutional ban on any of the aforementioned acts.

Freedom of speech does not and should not be contingent upon the offensive factor.

There is a real danger when we start enacting legislation based upon a knee-jerk reaction based upon not liking something. For if we elevate the American flag to Sacred Cow status, we begin to cheapen the very foundation of this nation.

Patriotism comes in many flavors. It’s time for Congress and many Americans to realize that rote recitation of the First Amendment is more than just words. And it’s doubly important to realize that the flag is the very symbol of freedom. The minute you pass a law to protect it, you reduce it to nothing more than a zealot’s possession; fragmenting it and claiming ownership for a lost cause.

I sincerely hope Congress comes to its senses and stops pandering to the citizens and gets back to the real business at hand: getting our men and women home safely from the Middle East.

blowhards and the ever-popular double standard.

I'm watching Tucker Carlson's new show on MSNBC. It's not bad, and by that I mean it's just like all the rest: droll, aims low, overly simplistic and about as deep as a street puddle.

They're hashing over the Michael Jackson verdict and ol' Tucker is doing what talk show hosts do too often when discussing a controversial topic such: arguing on emotion and gray areas and passing them off as fact.

It's interesting to me that, after every conservative talk show host went apeshit over Newsweek running a story based on faulty information are now blasting the jury for not convicting the King of Pepsi.

THink about it. Newsweek ran a story that, let's be fair, is entirely plausible, (and we're now learning of KOran abuse (which is a stupid, stupid thing to worry about in my view) but in the end was false. And the conservatives went nuts. They called for retractions. The White House began pretending they were the editorial board.

And now, Tucker Carlson is bitching up a blue streak over the a jury for not convicting based soley on the "where there's smoke there's fire" charge. It's a cheap ploy to fire up people. It's sort of a dirty trick, in my view. I'm no legal expert, but I'm smart enough to know that the jury was instructed to consider evidence -- and only evidence -- among other instructions from the judge. I just get tired of guys like Tucker Carlson and others arguing based upon what the media reported.

My favorite of all, of course, was when Carlson -- right on cue -- called Jackson a "Democratic fundraiser." Nothing like finding any fucking crevice into which you can force your agenda, Tuck, no matter how utterly fucking stupid you are about it. He did one fundraiser a few years ago. I love it when people bend facts to fit their cause.

I like Tucker Carlson, but his show is a cheap, political knock-off of Pardon the Interruption.

leonard pitts: a liberal who's rooted in reality.

Pulitzer Prize winning writer Leonard Pitts has been one of my favorite columnists for years. I think that's due in large part to the fact that he's a left-leaning fellow, but not Noam Chomsky-esque. He's still rooted in reality.

His column this weekend does a fairly good job of speaking to the issue of gay marriage better than me.

A civil discourse on gay marriage

why we hate.

I had a conversation with a fellow yesterday after lunch concerning Bill Clinton's visit to Indy yesterday. We got onto the topic of his presidency and his impeachment, which I have always maintained was nonsense. It made me realize I never published the following piece, which I wrote about two or three years ago. It's all about how Bill Clinton was, quite simply, reviled by conservatives and they would attack him for anything; including presidential pardons. I suppose we're seeing the flipside of that, some would argue, as lefties express their hate for Dubya these days. Anyways....

Here goes:

How We Love to Hate
Bill Clinton may not be in office, but he’s still a favorite target for rabid right wingers

Despite George W. Bush taking office in early 2001, it’s apparent that a favorite sport of the right-wingers in the U.S. continues to be Clinton-bashing. Even as an ex-officio president, it seems Clinton still raises the ire of Republicans near and far. It truly makes me wonder who is more powerful: Dubya or Bubba?

From the blow job about which he lied, to unsubstantiated views that he is a supporter of NAMBLA to the furor over his 11th-hour presidential pardons, Clinton still captures the imagination, if not ire, of his detractors. Why? Simple. He was bulletproof. He was more Teflon that John Gotti. And it pisses you off.

For me, it’s funny some of the time, and troubling the rest of the time. It irks me when Clinton-bashers will search for any reason – despite its validity – to hate him.

Any reason.

Was he a scoundrel? Probably. More so than his predecessors? Hardly. The last 30 years alone provided us a president who aided in covering up a break-in at DNC headquarters and a president on whose watch an illegal arms-for-hostages scandal took place. And let’s not forget what went on during LBJ’s term in office. And, of course, all the ensuing follies –questionable pardons, etc. – as they pertain to the aforementioned transgressions. Which has become the most recent raison de hate.

Clinton was heavily criticized for his pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich. It certainly was questionable and nobody doubts that. But where do his pardons stand in the eyes of history? Woefully mediocre. Clinton issued 456 presidential pardons, which is slightly higher than Ronald Reagan’s 406. Contrary to what the Clinton-bashers would lead you to believe, this sort of controversy was not invented by Clinton. Hell, it wasn’t even perfected by Clinton! Don’t believe me? Well, consider these presidential pardons:

Andrew Johnson pardoned Samuel Mudd in 1869.
Richard Nixon pardoned Jimmy Hoffa in 1971.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974.
Jimmy Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers in 1977.
Ronald Reagan pardoned Armand Hammer and George Steinbrenner (yes, that George Steinbrenner) in 1989.
George H.W. Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger in 1992.

Clinton’s flurry of pardons, while suspicious, is nothing new. I’m not suggesting that we, as a people, should not be concerned about the use (or abuse) of presidential clemency; it is something that should get our hackles up. But to direct it at Clinton and Clinton alone is simply playing into the hand of partisan nonsense. Hate to break it to the partisan loonies on both sides of the aisle, but neither Democrats nor Republicans are sole evil-doers.

In terms of presidential pardons, what should outrage Americans is how the privileged get all the breaks. This isn’t a Democrat/Republican issue, it’s one of rich vs. poor. As commentator Arianna Huffington said in her Feb. 14, 2001 www.salon.com column, “Justice for the Rich”:

“The hearings proved that America is two nations not just when it comes to poverty, health insurance, education, housing and -- as we discovered this election -- voting but also when it comes to breaking the law and getting away with it. Try stealing a few hundred bucks from a 7-Eleven; odds are you won't be represented by Jack Quinn, Scooter Libby or Leonard Garment, and the place you'll be going won't have a cozy fireplace and freshly groomed powder trails.”

So when you boil it down, is a hummer from an intern so bad? Well, yes, I actually think it is. An impeachable offense? Not so fast. Yeah, yeah. I know. I hear the indignation in your voice as you repeat to me “he lied under oath!” Let me finish the sentence for you: “…about a blow job!”

To me, it does and should matter what is the subject of the lie. Lying about an extramarital affair is wrong, no doubt. But in terms of national policy, I think it rates pretty low compared to what happened during Reagan’s watch.

And while we’re on the subject, let’s not forget Clinton is hardly the first president to have extramarital affairs while in the Oval Office. John F. Kennedy continues to be the gold standard of philanderers at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Of course that doesn’t make Clinton’s actions acceptable or even palatable. However he alone should not be criticized over it.

If we want to level tired platitudes about morality and justice in politics, then let us not excuse the actions of Kenneth Starr. Wasn’t he supposed to be investigating the Whitewater scandal? We start with a case about criminal financial activities at Whitewater development and it turns into the most expensive Penthouse Letter in American history? Just for laughs, go find the Starr Report on the Web and do a quick search for the words “oral sex.” Then do the same for the word “Whitewater” and compare the numbers. To save you the time, I already did it. Final score: 87-4. In favor of “oral sex.”

I digress.

One of the most inflammatory allegations I’ve personally heard levied against Clinton is his supposed support of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. Is there any truth to it? Absolutely not. I’ve found nothing to support such a claim. And it’s not for lack of trying.

The closest I can get to this involves the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA), which was granted UN consultant status under the Clinton administration. It was later learned that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA. ILGA’s status has since been rescinded and NAMBLA was shown the door, but apparently the perception that Clinton supported pedophilia has stuck.

Yet another classic example of how the misguided zeal of Clinton-haters hampers their own cause. Granted this brand of hatred usually spews from the poisonous ramblings of the Bob Enyarts and Jerry Falwells of the world but the problem is they have quite an audience who go along with it. The lengths to which people will go to make themselves comfortable with their own, fucked up views never ceases to amaze me.

Clinton is disliked for his policies and views about gun control, foreign policy, abortion, and so on down the line. That’s understandable. Such is the nature of being in politics, and that’s refreshing. There’s nothing more patriotic than standing up and telling our elected officials we disagree with what they’re doing. But the anti-Clinton movement gained momentum by playing dirty pool and acted to merely throw whatever it had at this guy and hope it would stick. When in doubt, call him a pedophile-sympathizer, I guess.

That same zeal fueled the now-debunked stories about Democratic vandalism in D.C. prior to Bush taking office. The story received much attention on all the major news networks and left the outgoing Clinton staffers looking like petulant children. Too bad it wasn’t true, eh? But you probably didn’t know that.

Oh well, whatever it takes to pin down those with whom you disagree. Even if it means lying, right?

Required reading

http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/vivienne/438/rants59.html
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/02/14/justice/
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/23/vandals/index.html
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/03/06/bankruptcy
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons.htm

the irony of indiana republicans crying "intolerance."

One of these days I’m going to have to consult with a theologian who can pinpoint the scripture, or verse, or prayer, or whatever was said or done to make the Republican Party think it’s the official party of Jesus Christ.

The Indiana Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit against Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma (a Republican) for allowing prayer at each day’s legislative session.

According to the Indianapolis Star, The ICLU's legal director Ken Falk argues, "At least 26 prayers were clearly Christian. They were clearly praising Jesus, which is appropriate in your home or church, but it's not appropriate for the state of Indiana to be doing from the floor of the General Assembly."

Hoosier Republicans are, right on cue, crying “censorship” and “intolerance” at the ICLU’s suit. Even more laughable is the charge by Indiana Republican Party Executive Director Luke Messer in today’s Star that the ICLU’s suit is "a dangerous attack on religious liberty.”

Nothing could be a greater distortion of reality. Watching Hoosier Republicans cry "intolerance" is ironic to no end.

It’s a favorite tactic of the Republican Party to pander to its base by playing the “persecuted” card, as though the only devout Christians in this world are on the right. It’s a cheap ploy and it’s totally inaccurate.

It’s easy to hate the ICLU and/or its big brother, the ACLU. They take up many fights and causes that have no allies in the mainstream media or public. They've defended NAZIS for the love of God! The ACLU and ICLUE truly are organizations unto themselves. Sometimes that’s good, other times not so much. But this is a time when I see the wisdom of their lawsuit.

Contrary to the hysterics of stuffed-shirt white guys in Indianapolis, the ICLU isn’t hosting a bible burning party anytime soon.

I hate to burst your pious bubble, Luke Messer, but this is not “just the latest in a long string of efforts by the far left to remove religion from the fabric of our society.”

Again, we’re back to that distortion of reality along with a heaping helping of Scare Tactics. Don’t believe it. Don’t’ believe any of it.

What you do, to whichever God you worship on your own time is your business and the ICLU fully backs and supports your right. Yes, they do.

But when you step foot on public grounds as a public servant, you have to keep your religion in your hip pocket. Therein lies your definition of tolerance.

Religious tolerance doesn’t mean every minority religion or faith has to sit by idly as the Jesus parade honks and rolls through the Senate. It means you have to put it all aside until the session is over. Because believers in God such as myself are sick and tired of seeing religion used as a weapon.

That’s what this is about.

So, Speaker Bosma, take thine self off of your cross. You’ve proven on more than one occasion to be nothing more than a whore for the lowest fights of your party. You don’t get to be a martyr too, to a self-serving cause.

Back to my original point about Jesus and the GOP. Has the Republican Party ever stopped to look at what Jesus did? With whom he associated? I guarantee it wasn’t among the business leaders and muckety-mucks in society.

He ran with a rough, nefarious crowd. He was about as anti-establishment a guy can get. Whores, thieves, the disenfranchised and ne’er-do-wells….I’m thinking Jesus was a Gasp!! LIBERAL!!!!!

bill & me. if i could ask clinton anything, what would it be?

I just read today that former President Bill Clinton will be speaking in Indianapolis on Wednesday evening at a NW side synagogue about the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The only remaining tickets are $200 apiece. Were it that I could afford it, I would go.

He also will be at a book-signing on Wednesday afternoon at a Barnes & Noble near me. My guess is I won't be able to get near the place. The signing begins at 3pm. I'm sure the line will be forming all day and security will be tight.

Now, I did vote for Clinton. Twice. I don't regret it either time. But don't think for one second that my vote equals a free pass. If anything, it means I leaned on him harder to do right by me. It means I demanded the absolute best and if we didn't get it as a nation, I'd demand accountability from him. The U.S.S. Cole was bombed. Embassies were bombed. All at the hands of Osama bin Laden. Now, I do not blame Clinton for 9/11 (nor do I blame Bush). But my biggest question to him right now would be why didn't we get bin Laden? The buck stops at the Oval Office, or so Harry Truman said. I'd have to go to Where's George? to find it these days.

I'm sure Clinton, if asked questions by me or anybody at the book signing, would give a very eloquent and impassioned reply. And I would no doubt take him at his word. Perhaps he was feeding me bullshit. Perhaps not. But I always got the sense that Clinton was, truly, one of the smartest, well-thought men in that office. His eggheaded nature sometimes earned him ridicule (often rightfully so). But at least it would be better than condescending, terse answers like, "they hate us for our freedom."

At least with Clinton you knew you had a hand-wringer who thought long and hard about every decision he made (except for one, really).

Call me liberal for appreciating that approach more often than not.

I call it smart. I call it measured. I call it pragmatic. "Shoot first, ask questions later" may be great West Texas wisdom in some minds, but we don't need a maverick cowboy occupying the White House. Perhaps we're now realizing that. Too bad Congress was too chickenshit to stand up to the president when it needed to most.

But getting back to my point...if I could ask Clinton anything, I promise it would be about accountability to Osama bin Laden's terrorist acts. It would be about why we didn't get him if/when we had the chance.

In short, I would demand Mr. Clinton continue to be accountable for my vote.

I wonder if those who voted for Bush ever do the same.

Sadly in today's political climate, earning the votes and winning the election have become the end-game when it really is just the beginning of the battle.

the things we do to women.

Yet another shining example of how religion can be dangerous:

Saudis Outraged Over Women-Drive Proposal

By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - He just wanted his colleagues in the government's legislative arm to discuss the possibility of conducting a study into the feasibility of reversing the ban on women drivers — the only prohibition of its kind in the world.

But Consultative Council member Mohammad al-Zulfa's proposal has unleashed a storm in this conservative country where the subject of women drivers remains taboo.


Yes, this is the 21st Century.

Al-Zulfa's cell phone now constantly rings with furious Saudis accusing him of encouraging women to commit the double sins of discarding their veils and mixing with men. He gets phone text messages calling on Allah to freeze his blood. Chat rooms bristle with insulting accusations that al-Zulfa is "driven by carnal instincts with 454 horsepower." Read more.

By no means would I suggest that every person who attends Sunday service is a maniacal zealot. Your faith is your business and it is, many times, a good thing. The church to which a woman I know belongs is using donations in her recently passed father's name toward a scholarship for a parishioner.

Church provides community for many.

But there also is an ugly side. Religious fervor -- especially when it controls a governing body -- fosters oppression and intolerance.

This is precisely why my hackles get raised at the notion of booting members of a church over their last presidential votes.

This is precisely why I bristle at the notion of Indiana's house speaker calling it a "right" to pray to Jesus every morning on the senate floor.

This is also precisely why I vehemently oppose the likes of Judge Roy Moore and his two-ton monument to the Ten Commandments he so insists belong in his courthouse.

Religion can provide guidance and strength if regarded as a personal relationship with God. When it becomes a basis for governmental policy, all citizens are at risk for oppression.

It's ironic, really, that the president so insists on overly simplistically (and patronizingly) saying "they hate us for our freedom" about Al Qaeda, yet we call the Saudis our allies.

How many Saudis flew planes into buildings on 9/11?

Yeah, tell me again religion can't possibly be dangerous.

time for mainstream media to get re-introduced to its job.

It's interesting to see the up-tick in interest over Watergate right now. Book and DVD sales of All The President's Men surged. Makes sense.

I was always surprised and a bit disappointed in high school that history books said very little about the Watergate scandal. So in my freshman English comp. class (good ol’ W131, for all you IU grads out there) I decided to make Watergate the focus of my major paper.

I, of course, read All The President's Men, which was a fascinating read, really. I also read several other books and volumes about the break-in and subsequent scandal. In the span of a few short weeks I went from knowing very little to naming every Nixon cabinet member and their assistants.

I think I got an A on that paper.

In hindsight, though, I realize I was just writing a re-count of the whole thing. I thought I was trying to understand it and had to write a paper to do that. But all I was doing, really, was re-stating the facts. I offered very little in the way of my own perspective. I was 18 years old at the time (wow!) and probably have a much better worldview than I did back then.

If I were doing it now (well, before Felt came out) I'd probably try to speculate as to who is Deep Throat and, most importantly, dive deeper into the "why" question.

What's a bit disappointing to me right now is the fact that everybody is hashing over Mark Felt. They're only focusing on the "who" in the mainstream media. Why isn't anybody openly asking the "why" questions?

Why were Nixon's men so sycophantic, to the point of breaking the law?

Why was there so much paranoia in the White House?

Why did Felt feel compelled to act as an informant, rather than coming forward?

Why?

No. Instead we're fed a daily diet of "he's a hero" vs. "he's a villain." That's lovely pabulum for the first hour of the first day of the news cycle. But if we're going to continue to talk about Mark Felt and the Watergate scandal, let's truly revisit what's at the heart of the matter: the abuse of power.

But nobody likes to ask hard questions anymore. Just look at President Bush's last press conference, where nobody in the Washington Press Corp asked a single question about the 10 Downing Street memos.

Not one question about the memo that implies lying on the part of the Bush Administration to start a war. So much for this "elitist liberal" media out to get Dubya.

I digress.

Forgive me. I just miss the days of journalists who actually did their jobs.