We had a perfectly reasonable agreement with NK in 1994. Republicans fought it and succeeded in delaying payments and the removal of sanctions, and NK started ignoring it also, until by 2003 it had completely fallen apart, at which point the problem was ignored by the Bush administration for another four years.

The fact it has been 'fixed' does not change the fact that, during that time, NK has processed who knows how much uranium, and gained the knowledge to build the bomb. We (and by 'we' I mean Republicans) screwed around for a decade by ignoring actual agreements, and instead making strong threats we couldn't actually follow through on, giving them a decade of research and manufacture.

This is not a victory, it's just less of a loss. For all we know, they now have six nukes hidden in a military base somewhere now, or, worse, have smuggled them into South Korea as the ultimate determent to invasion.

Yea, those updates on the Natalee Holloway case are pretty essential...

As are all those other breathless updates on CNN NBC, CBS, ABC, etc., telling us that irrespective of Armitage's admissions, Richard Cheney or George Bush must be behind Dick leaking Plame.

While the right notes leftist bias of virtually all news sources, the left seeks to censure, even silence the few national voices of the right. I'm sure that seems fair to you anjin-san.

FNC, aside from blatherers such as Sean Hannity and Alan Combs and the bombastic opinions of O'Reilly and the morning crew, offers real news

Yea, those updates on the Natalee Holloway case are pretty essential...

I am sure their opinions are at least as well informed as someone who gets all of their news from Fox, and Red State, Powerline, or talk radio who would certainly vote against Obama.

And I believe you are mistaken. FNC, aside from blatherers such as Sean Hannity and Alan Combs and the bombastic opinions of O'Reilly and the morning crew, offers real news. It is offered with a content bias no different than any other networks' programing. I am constantly amazed by folks who condemn FNC as a propaganda outlet all the while lapping up all that Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers or Christiana Amanpour spout. The institutional bias of FNC leans less right than do all the other news organizations left lean.

Websites such as this, Powerline, Instapundit, Talkleft, Washington Monthly rely upon one thing to keep readership up - intelligent and honest noting and analysis of current events. While I, at times, differ with all bloggers at these sites, I know that they are trying to be as factual as possible, and when they make factual mistakes they post corrections. There are dishonest websites certainly, but the people that visit them are not concerned with truth, they want to a story told in a way that comforts their own preconceptions and prejudices.

Most talk radio offers informed opinion and rational debate. The Randi Rhodes and Michael Savages are the exception to the rule. Furthermore, talk radio has nested within, regular news updates provided by ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, etc. On balance, I'd trust any hour of Dennis Prager over an hour of Stewart/Colbert for accuracy. That said, I do enjoy both Stewart and Colbert, they are mostly funny. But to pretend that they are a news source reveals more of ones own acumen and veracity.

I suspect that last bit about Stewert and Colbert was in jest, but several of my friends actually do get all their "news" from those comedy shows... that and Crooks and Liars. They are, of course, all Obama supporters.

I am sure their opinions are at least as well informed as someone who gets all of their news from Fox, and Red State, Powerline, or talk radio who would certainly vote against Obama.

Stewart and Colbert are nearly my sole source of 'television news'. From recent experience in California and Alabama they are about as informative as other 'television news' not on PBS and are much funnier.

No Olbermman, Alex?

I figured he'd be a staple in the Knapp household...

I only watched him once, and found him pompous and annoying.

Just because you are a flaming liberal who believes in government control and intervention, and socialistic economic policy, don't think you can hold a candle to Hannity.

For the record:

1) I am not a liberal.
2) I do sometimes support government intervention, that's true. I like it when, for example, the government intervenes and controls rapists and murderers and prevents them from raping and murdering.
3) I support a free-market economy, and generally oppose socialism.
4) Why would I hold a candle to Sean Hannity? To burn him or something?

Just because you are a flaming liberal who believes in government control and intervention, and socialistic economic policy, don't think you can hold a candle to Hannity. He can spout better commentary than you in his sleep.

Now go get yourself all excited and watch those shows that FOX programs trounce in ratings EVERYday:
A)Keith Countdown-to-no-ratings or
B)CNN or
C)CBS/NBC/ABC

Do you think all those at CNN that reported Bush’s election victory thought it was a good thing?

IF Hannity said it was a clear victory and “he” thought it was a great policy with no weaknesses then said it suck, he would be flip flopping.

Personally, I think it was victory but only as a start. The devil is in enforcing it. It puts pressure on China to help enforce it. However, if the next administration doesn’t follow though then it is a waste of time.

It being a victory for NORK doesn't preclude it being one for the White House, does it?

It does in the Bush/Hannity mind.

Just because we have a temporary friend (because he's the enemy of my enemy- Joe hates terrorism and supports the WOT) doesn't mean he's not also my enemy - Soviet Russia and FDR cost Eastern Europe many years of unforgivable grief.

I wont mention Hannity's being ignorant enough to call people he doesn't even know a "great American"