to a point... I will never defend O' Reilly who, imo, is nothing more than a 21st century version of Mort Downey w/out the cigarettes and the glow-in-the-dark choppers. Olbermann's deconstruction of Bill O and the Bushies is almost beautiful to listen to at times, but yes, it's also frustrating when you think of the opportunity that could be lost. With Olbermann's wit and compass there is a glaring need for him to do the most obvious thing and that is the deconstruction of the official exposition of events related to the Sept. 11 attacks (especially with the war on terror raging outside our windows /sarcasm).

It seems that you see this more as a course to be charted, while I see this as a closing window that we need to pass through in time. Anyone who's studied Nov. 1963 knows, knows that the WC was a complete fraud. You have a former CIA director on the Commission (a no-no) who had within the last few months been publicly canned and embarrassed by the very man whose assassination he was then supposed to investigate. Way too much to recount here for those who haven't looked at it much, but the majority of the public has never bought the lone-nut theory. And despite the fact that the lone-nut theory has fallen apart, as well as the emergence of much more info over the years, it's still not okay to bring up this topic in public.

Soon, other world events will emerge into the public debate that will make this topic less urgent, or even relevant --not to us maybe. But right now in the home stretch of the Bush presidency, and with an impending power shift in Nov. of next year, there will be a new course charted, and as evidence trickles out over the years and the picture becomes clearer, Bush will be a former president--viewed as much less dangerous--and there will be a call by some "not to dredge up the past" ... that it's more important for the country to look forward (like O'bama is already saying (no to accountability and truth, and yes to ignorance a moving forward--to me it's that kind of attitude that invites corruption). And as ridiculous as this may sound, it certainly worked well against the Kennedy researchers, many of whom were so driven by the need to know that they' ve spent 30 or more years of their life trying to bring the truth to light. Of course the public did get the second hearing in the late 70s which came to the conclusion that there was a probable conspiracy, and that's even after evidence was withheld and more people died just before their testimony. That senatorial committee concluded there was a probable conspiracy to kill the president, the majority of citizens believe it, yet the government's official position has never wavered from 'Oswald acted alone.'

However, after considering that, I still agree that if the campaign is too aggressive or forceful then there will be backlash. I just don't want to see a similar fate for this truth campaign.