Click here for instructions on running Gaggle daily on your own site. There's also an archive of previous toons available here.

On today's edition of The Chris Matthews Show, liberal panelist and blogger Andrew Sullivan made the argument that "insurgents are legitimate" and the Bush administration wants to make a "deal with them and he wants to bring them into the process". Ironically, the process is liberating the Iraqi citizens from insurgents and various other types of terrorists. Full transcript follows.

DOWNLOAD .WMV.

Newsweek’s senior editor Jonathan Alter wrote an article for this week’s issue entitled “The Real Price of Propaganda” wherein he came down strongly against recent revelations that the Pentagon might be “buying” articles to be placed in Iraqi newspapers. On the one hand, there is some delicious irony in seeing an anti-propaganda column in an American periodical that is periodically so full of it. Yet, maybe more curious is how Alter seemed mostly disgusted by the amount of money the Pentagon might be paying for such an exercise without recognizing how inexpensive this is compared to the cost of waging a war measured in both dollars and lives. This is made even more hypocritical given Newsweek’s antagonism to this war. However, none of these glaring holes seemed to deter Alter from making his argument.

It is interesting that one of Alter’s major sources for this piece is that venerable bastion of geopolitical opinion, Rolling Stone magazine:

US told Germany CIA imprisonment a mistake: report

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States admitted to German officials last year that the CIA had mistakenly imprisoned one of its citizens for five months but asked the German government to remain quiet, according to a U.S. media report on Sunday.

The newspaper cited interviews with current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials. CIA officials told Reuters they had no comment...

Consider the symbiotic relationship between Washington, the liberals and the free press during the Clinton years and today. In the 1990's terrorism was dealt with by firing missiles at an aspirin factory resulting in the deaths of innocent people. They ignored both the threat to America and the unnecessary murders. Yet today, after 9/11, Saddam, uncontrolled growth in terrorists, the media as well as liberals continue their support of the enemy and contempt for their country.

In their tunnel vision focus, there is no reality for ultimate consequences with regard to the war on terror other than political. Their enemy remains the conservatives, not the terrorists. The idea that our world can survive today as friends was decimated recently in Spain. The hypocrisy, treasonous attacks against both our government and military have defined a sector which is not worthy of making decisions affecting our country. Media circulation continues to fall, curiously why.

JDW

As reported by NewsBusters here, the New York Times’ William Safire made some statements on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on October 30 concerning his view of a changing tide in the media’s opinion of the president. This morning’s panel on NBC’s “The Chris Matthews Show” proved Safire as being rather prophetic.

To refresh everyone’s memory, Safire said that day: “Now, the wonderful thing about American attention and media coverage, is the narrative has to change.  It can't stay the same, or else it's not newsworthy. And so the story will be the comeback.”

Newsweek’s Susannah Meadows, with help from Howard Fineman and John Barry, wrote what appeared to be a 2008 presidential advertisement presenting Sen. Hillary Clinton to readers as a pro-military hawk. In doing so, Meadows unintentionally exposed an interesting hypocrisy in the senator’s stance that she, like others in Congress, was misled by President Bush prior to her October 11, 2002 vote to authorize the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.

First, Meadows went to great lengths to present Sen. Clinton as not being a dove:

Miami Police have announced plans to conduct what they are calling "high profile ID sweeps" where they intend to check the identification of everyone entering a public building.

Officials claim in doing so, no one's rights are being violated; but what if one does not want to show police their driver's license or happened to have forgotten to bring it with them that day?

If one refuses to participate by suddenly getting out of line and not entering the building, will that now be deemed enough probable cause to get maced in the face and a billy-club across the back of the knees?

And what if authorities deny citizens access to food in supermarkets, to buy and sell as alluded to in Revelation 13, unless they comply with draconian identification measures?

Unlike a roadside stop, one does not need government authorization to perambulate down the sidewalk. It's called a DRIVER'S LICENSE, not an authorization to leave your house permit.

The negativity of the liberal media concerning Iraq has filtered into one of my favorite football-related websites.

Profootballtalk.com is generally an entertaining web site, but tonight I found this "aside" from one of their writers and it burns me up:

As a quick aside, doesn't the revelation that our government has paid multiple domestic and foreign media types for spreading the gospel make you wonder how widespread these practices are or have been? Regardless of political affiliation, doesn't it likewise make you wonder who you really can trust to deliver, you know, the truth?

Here's the link to the story (scroll down to the "David is Done" piece): http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill .htm