Ally or Enemy? Pakistan can't be both.

Osama bin Laden's use of the military city of Abbottabad as his final hide-out aggravates a familiar suspicion among U.S. policymakers: that Pakistan just pretends it helps us in the war against terrorists while it harbors those terrorists.

Pakistan's security establishment and government have always vehemently denied playing such a double game, particularly in the case of Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda figures.

But analysts say Pakistan's willingness to reach an accommodation with militants who further its national aims is a cornerstone of the country's regional strategy, and is unlikely to change. At the same time it depends on the United States, despite a long history of anger and frustration. Pakistan needs U.S. aid; Washington needs Pakistan's help winding down the war in Afghanistan.

And U.S. officials do not want to see Pakistan turn into a failed state that is home to both a broad array of extremist groups and an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

U.S. officials have refrained from directly accusing Pakistani security forces of harboring Bin Laden, but they say he could not have remained hidden so long without a network of supporters, possibly within Pakistan's largest intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, or ISI.

Pakistan, in turn, lashed out at the U.S. on Tuesday for conducting the raid that killed Bin Laden without first seeking permission. "Such actions undermine cooperation and may also constitute a threat to international peace and security," the Foreign Ministry said.

Some U.S. lawmakers have raised the prospect of trimming back billions of dollars in economic and military aid Washington has pledged to Pakistan, but it will probably just delay the aid to make a point

Pakistani officials say they regard Al Qaeda as being every bit as dangerous as the Americans do, and point out their role over the years in apprehending a number of key figures. Among them was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who claims to have planned the Sept. 11 attacks.

Its approach to other groups is more nuanced. Pakistani intelligence agencies are widely suspected of keeping close relations with groups that target rival India, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, which is accused of organizing the attack on Mumbai in 2008 that killed 166 people.

One of the best examples is its handling of the Al Qaeda-allied Taliban factions that maintain strongholds in the country's tribal regions along the Afghan border.

The army has launched offensives against the Pakistani Taliban, a homegrown insurgency that directs most of its attacks on security installations, mosques and markets within Pakistan. But it leaves untouched factions such as the Haqqani network, which focuses its attacks exclusively on U.S., NATO and Afghan security forces in Afghanistan.

Most observers believe Pakistan maintains ties with the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network with an eye to the future. There was evidence in the WikiLeaks that Pakistan was funding and training Taliban rebels,

Pakistan hopes to exert increased influence on Afghanistan once the U.S. completes its military withdrawal in 2014, and it expects both of these insurgent organizations to play vital roles in Afghanistan's future. But many Pakistanis also fear that any offensive against the Haqqani network would cause militant groups in the tribal areas to unleash violence within Pakistan.

Though it's clear that the U.S. and Pakistan have divergent interests, experts doubt that either side would ever allow the relationship to break down completely.

An open letter to Barack Obama written prior to his appearance at Ground Zero in New York on May 5, 2011.

Dear Mr. President,

Nice job sir. Your leadership in taking out Osama Bin Laden is commendable. It will be a defining moment in American history and in your Presidency.

I see that your poll numbers for leadership have gone up. You deserve it. To be frank, I think you have been indecisive in dealing with Iran, Egypt and Libya. In my opinion, you became Commander-in-Chief in fact, and not just in title, this week.

There will be continued political sniping, even in the wake of great achievement. Try to ignore it. This event transcends politics and those who try and score cheap points are exposed as partisan beyond reason.

To that point, please don’t use your visit to Ground Zero today to make a political speech. The site is a graveyard for many of the innocents killed by Osama Bin Laden on September 11, 2001. To use the site for personal gain would be an insult to their memories.

It would be best to make no speech at all. But if you must, make it momentous, but appropriate to the hallowed ground on which you’ll stand. Behind you will be construction of the Freedom Tower, symbol that America is rising from great tragedy. With the monster who caused that heartache now dead, take this moment to congratulate the men and women who went to war to avenge us for a job well done. And then tell them they are coming home.

President Bush once stood where you will stand and made a declaration that “the people who kocked this building down will hear all of us soon.” That hurled this nation into war with Afghanistan and on a manhunt unprecedented in history.

That manhunt has come to an end. Take the opportunity to use the same site that was used to proclaim war to proclaim peace. You have the power, the right and the moral obligation to end the war in Afghanistan.

Say that. Or say nothing at all.

Sincerely and Respectfully, Larry Mendte

Should we have released the gory photo of Osama Bin Laden with gunshot wound to tthe head?

No says President Obama. he announced his plans on 60 Minutes. "We don't trot out this stuff as trophies," Mr. Obama said. "It is important to make sure that very graphic photos of somebody who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool."

Still, a number of political figures and commentators, including yours truly, have objected to this reasoning, arguing that the release of the photos is inevitable - and that putting the images out now would both serve as definitive proof of bin Laden's death, and provide families affected by the 9/11 attacks with a sense of closure.

"The whole purpose of sending our soldiers into the compound, rather than an aerial bombardment, was to obtain indisputable proof of bin Laden's death," said Rep. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) in a statement, noting that he thought the decision not to release them was "a mistake."

"I know bin Laden is dead," Graham said. "But the best way to protect and defend our interests overseas is to prove that fact to the rest of the world."

"For me it's about closure," said Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.) in Thursday appearance on CBS News' "The Early Show." "It's about the American people, people that got struck that day, people that had friends and family... about guys like me that did multiple tours overseas after 9/11, because of 9/11."

"I want to see the dead body," he added. "I want to see the fruits of our labor, of my long absences, of my long hours overseas, of my sleepless nights, of Afghanistan, of all the things I've been through."

Hunter argued, too, that contrary to Mr. Obama's fears, releasing the photos was unlikely to provoke extremists to further violence.

"We're already in as much danger as we're going to be in. It's not like the extremist Muslim radicals are going to all of a sudden say, we aren't going to go suicide bombing today, because they did not release those photos," he said. "We're always going to face that. We should not curb our first amendment rights because of what some crazy people might do."

But beyond the question of whether or not the government should release the photos is the possibility that the images will find their way into the public regardless. The Associated Press on Monday filed a request for the photos (as well as video of the raid taken by military personnel) through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) - and there is ever the possibility of a leak.

Some wonder whether or not it would be better for the White House to release the photos now in order to maintain control of the narrative.

National security analyst Juan Zarate said he thought the White House made the "right decision" in withholding the photos, but that ultimately, the choice might come back to haunt the administration.

"The problem is, in the age of WikiLeaks, the image, I think, at some point is going to get out," he said on the "Early Show." "This issue won't go away simply because we say we're not going to put images out. And so I think controlling that message is ultimately an important factor. But I think at this moment, the president made the right call."

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani expressed a similar argument, but to a different end: "The pictures are eventually going to get out and then you are going to relive all the intensity of this a month from now or two months from now or three months from now," he said. "Why not put them out now and satisfy at least the rational people who have questions about the identity of bin Laden? "

Some also wondered at the assumption that Americans were too squeamish to handle the "graphic" nature of the images.

"Too gory? Have you met us?!" wondered Comedy Central's Jon Stewart while addressing the matter on "The Daily Show" Wednesday night. "From 8 p.m. on, every television show we watch begins with an internal tracking shot of a gaping wound above someone's left eye before pulling out to reveal half a hooker in a dumpster discovered by a child on a bicycle," Stewart said. "You know what we call it? Prime time."

Stewart also disputed the argument that the image might inspire violence, arguing that, unlike Americans, people in the Muslim world were confronted with gory images of the casualties of U.S. wars on a regular basis.

"The extremists over there already hate us, and, I don't know if you know this, but the Muslim world sees pretty graphic images of people we kill - on purpose or accidentally - all the time," he said. "Sometimes they don't even have to see it on TV."

He went on to contend that Americans were too isolated from the tangible impacts of the nation's military actions.

"We've been fighting this war for nearly ten years," Stewart said. "Thousands of U.S. deaths. Tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis have died, and we've seen nearly zero photographic evidence of it."

"We can only make decisions about war if we see what war actually is," he added. "Not as a video game where bodies disappear leaving behind a shiny gold coin."

I agree with all of the above and would just add thatwe need to send this graphic message to the new Al Qaeda leadership and any new recruits that this is what happens when you attack America. Violence is a last resort. But some people only understand violence. This would send a message ton the thugs of al Qaeda loud and clear.

President Obama got a nice bump up in polls after the killing of Osama bin Laden. His overall approval rating rose 11 points, from 46 percent two weeks before bin Laden's death to 57 percent now.

His job approval rating also rose 15 points among Republicans (though still is only 24 percent). And his approval ratings on specific international issues, such as handling foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan and the threat of terrorism, all rose by double digits.

This is surely good news for the president, but the poll also reveals the continuing presence of a black cloud, as evaluations of his handling of the economy sank to a new low. Just 34 percent approved of his handling of what has been the country's most important issue for years now, and 55 percent disapproved.

Approval for his handling of the economy fell four points compared to two weeks earlier. While a 56 percent majority of those in the president's own party approved of the job he is doing in this area, 33 percent disapproved.

As early as January 2008, the economy supplanted the war in Iraq in CBS News Polls as the most important issue facing the country, sometimes volunteered by as many as 60 percent of Americans. Since then, the percentage that says the economy is in bad shape has ranged from 7 in ten to as many as 94 percent.

In a New York Times Poll conducted in April 2011, 80 percent said the economy was bad, and just 23 percent said it was improving. Thirty-nine percent said it was getting worse - not a surprise, with gas prices on the rise and majorities of Americans consistently reporting that they are concerned about job loss in their household.

History provides one example of how critical a president's handling of the economy, and how fleeting accolades for success overseas, can be. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War in early 1991, President George H. W. Bush's job approval rating soared to 88 percent, according to a March CBS News/New York Times Poll.

Approval remained high for the next six months, but by October, with concerns about the economy growing, approval began to drop, and in November it was just 51 percent.

By November 1991, 73 percent said the economy was in bad shape, and 66 percent disapproved of how President G.H.W. Bush was handling it; just 25 percent approved. 44 percent felt the economy was deteriorating.

With the economy showing signs of recovery, President Obama's experience may prove to be much different than President Bush's was in 1991 -- it is too soon to say. But success overseas, and a subsequent increase in approval that follows, may - or may not -- mark a permanent shift in perceptions.

Among the information found in Osama Bin Laden's compound, the most compelling so far, has been the planned rail attack on the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

U.S. officials have treated the potential attack with enough seriousness to have increased rail security, and brought the possible attack to the country's attention.

In a report by Reuters on the official U.S. response:

Since the raid, the Department of Homeland Security has taken a number of steps in reviewing measures at all potential terrorist targets, including transportation systems across the country. It added more officers at airports and at the borders.

Senator Charles Schumer has taken this one step further, and on Sunday suggested there should be a "do not ride" list list for rail travel to match the "do not fly" list for airlines. This, despite the fact that the attacks outlined by Bin Laden's papers indicate an attack on the rails themselves, not on-board the train.

According to ABC News:

"The targeting of the railroad infrastructure itself is a much smarter move on the part of the terrorists, because you get more bang for the buck," said Kevin Lynch, a retired freight rail police chief who consults on railroad police practices.

Despite these warnings, reports from The New York Post have surfaced this morning pointing to two startling rail security breaches on NY transit lines over the weekend.

The first incident, Sunday, near the World Trade Center, 20-year-old Reymundo Rodriguez entered a train tunnel and walked it through to New Jersey. Spotted by a Port Authority contractor as he exited, he told police he left a bomb in the tunnel.

The tunnel was shut down while a Joint Terrorism Task Force and dogs searched for the device, which was never found. Rodriguez was charged with trespassing, evaluated at a hospital and let go.

The second involved four "urban explorers" reportedly entering an under construction subway tunnel. Carrying roman candles and cameras, the four twenty-somethings said they planned to take pictures by the fireworks in the Second Ave. subway tunnel.

The four were also charged with trespassing after Harlem resident Jerry Jackson called police and told them he had seen the four entering the subway around 112th Street.

It is clear that we need tighter rail security, but there are 140,000 miles of passenger and freight rail and only about 40% is monitored. The folks at Homeland Security will tell you that we just don't have the money. They have already spent $1.6 Billion since 2006 on rail security improvements.

Wow, that much huh? We spend $2 Billion a week in Afghanistan. We should stop spending that money to keep Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and start spending in in America to keep them off our rails and trains.

Am I the only one who is concerned about the Big Brother aspect of this new Government texting alert system.

If there is a chip in your phone to get special alerts, what else can it do? It's a fair question. As of yet. no answers.

I know I should ignore her. I know that she is probably just stirring up publicity for her new show on Oprah's Network. But Rosie O'Donnell's comments about the brave Navy Seals who risked their own lives to kill the most wanted terrorist in the world are reprehensible to the point that they cannot be ignored.

On her radio show she said, “Because other people are capable of criminal acts on our soil doesn’t equate to ‘Therefore, we are allowed to do criminal acts on their soil,’”

How dare she call those brave men"criminal"! They broke now laws. International law requires that they have the right to shoot and kill an enemy combatant unless he "clearly" attempts to surrender. Osama Bin Laden did not do that.

And under our laws the killing of Bin Laden was also legal and not "criminal." Under the Military Use of Force Act bsigned into law on September 18, 2001 - "The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

Rosie should know the law before she calls someone criminal. Of course the irony is that the Navu Seals are on the front lines of defending her right to say idiotic things.

Barack Obama's greatest victory as President came last week when he gave the order to kill Osama Bin Laden and in doing so brought the country together.

He blewn it Tuesday in El Paso.

Instead of being the great uniter, he decided to play politics and divide the country. Most of the reform that the President oulined in his speech about Immigration reform, he admitted would not get past a Republican Congress. What he didn't say is that he could do most of the initiatives in his plan by Executive order. But he doesn't really want the reforms, he just wants to use them to demonize the Republican party among Latinos heading into his 2012 re-election bid.

It is cynical politics and pandering at its worst.

President Obama won in 2008 largely because of his landslide victory among Latino voters, beating John McCain in the group 67% - 31%. He would not have won Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada or the White House without the Latino vote.

And so now he is promising the exact same things that he promised during the 2008 campaign - nothing new. Just the same exact things he said were a priority when he ran for President.

He wants a fight over immigration with Republicans in the Congress. But the president's plan to create a pathway to citizenship for 10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants and increase legal immigration is not only out of touch with economic reality, it repeats the mistakes of the past.

The president seems to believe there is a shortage of workers. Yet the April jobs report looked terrible, particularly for the young and less educated, who compete directly with illegal immigrants at the bottom of the labor market. For example, unemployment was nearly 15% for those age 25 and older without a high school diploma and 25% for teenagers (16 to 19).

AdvertisementAds by Google
Immigration Reform Now
Join Rupert Murdoch & Barack Obama and demand immigration reform now. barackobama.com/immigration-reform
It's even worse if we include those who have given up looking for work. Most Americans don't compete with illegal immigrants for jobs, but those who do are among the hardest-hit by this recession.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 8 million illegal immigrants currently hold jobs in the United States. Anchoring them permanently in the country with legal status, as the president wants to do, makes no sense given the employment picture.

There is debate among economists about how much immigration reduces employment for the less educated and the young, but there is good evidence that it does.

An analysis by researchers at the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University found that immigration significantly hurts such opportunities for young and less-educated U.S.-born workers. A National Bureau of Economic Research report found that immigration explained 40 percent of the decline in employment for low-skilled black men in recent decades. A 2010 paper published by the Federal Reserve concludes that immigration reduced the employment rate of native-born teenagers by a very large 7 percentage points.

Only if we ignore the plight of such workers does the president's proposal make sense.

The president's plan also repeats past mistakes. In 1986, 2.7 million illegal immigrants received amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, and the rate of legal permanent immigration has roughly doubled to more than 1 million a year since then. Yet the illegal population is now estimated at twice what it was in 1986, partly because the law was largely unenforced once it passed.

It is a serious problem that needs real solutions and compromise between the two parties. Don't expect either heading into 2012. Just mor pandering by both parties to their bases on either side of the issue.

It was a shocker!

Answering a question from Senator Maria Canwell (D-WA) of the Senate Finance Committee, Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson admitted that oil prices did not currently reflect supply and demand. “When we look at it, it’s going to be somewhere in the $60 to $70 range."

Oil barrels is currently just under $100 a barrel, so it is clear that something beyond the laws of supply and demand is driving the high price of oil, and with it, the high price of gasoline. Well, if it isn’t supply or demand that is driving the price of oil up so high, there’s really only one other culprit: oil speculators.

What, exactly, are oil speculators? They are social parasites, gamblers who produce absolutely nothing of value. They bet on the price of a barrel of oil, and use their low margin requirements and influence in the market to drive the price of commodities higher and higher. They then feed off each other, like lemmings off a cliff, speculating and pushing the market higher. When the market seems prime for a dip, they switch their bets. This drives the price back down some, allowing them to magically make money on both sides of the transaction.

A small amount of oil speculation is a healthy thing for the economy, when it is done by firms intent on actually receiving the oil and producing something of value with it. Speculation lets those companies time the markets to reduce their costs. Those bets have a negligible effect on the price of oil.

But, according to experts, speculators in today’s market have added $30 to $40 to the price of a barrel of oil. Let’s assume that Tillerson is telling the truth, and not just placing blame on these convenient, shadowy targets. What does this mean for you?

For starters, it means you are paying a ridiculous premium at the pump. By allowing speculators to gamble on the oil commodities market, you add those additional $30 to $40 to the price of a barrel of oil. Take that money out of the equation, and you’re looking at $60 barrels of oil. That translates to a gas price of around $2 per gallon, if not less.

Oil speculation might also have cost you your job. The high price of oil has been a drag on the economy for two years, dragging the economy down every time it starts to grow. The unemployment rate has hovered around 9-10% for years now, and every time it threatens to make gains, the price of oil drags the economy back down.

It is clear to any impartial observer that regulators need to clamp down in speculative trading in the oil market before the economy will ever fully recover. Failure to do so will not just effect the bottom line of corporations, but the pocketbooks of America’s families.

So now real estate magnate Donald Trump and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are out.

In early April, Trump and Huckabee led the 2012 Republican field with 19 percent support apiece, according to a CNN/Opinion Research poll that surveyed Republican voters nationwide. Sarah Palin took third place with 12 percent, and Mitt Romney was tied in fourth place with Newt Gingrich, both garnering 11 percent of the votes.

But the thing is this: Only two of the five people in the top bracket are running for the presidency - Romney and Gingrich.

So, who do the Republicans, social conservatives, evangelicals, birthers, tea partiers, etc. - essentially, the ones who had already thrown their support to Trump and/or Huckabee - choose?

"It's like 52-card pickup," Mark McKinnon, a strategist for former president George W. Bush told USA Today. "Huckabee's decision totally reshapes the race."

For Ed Rollins, the veteran Republican strategist who was chairman of Huckabee's 2008 campaign, "It's Romney vs. the field."

"There's usually a front-runner and a chaser. We have no idea who the chaser is going to be," Rollins said, according to USA Today.

The Republican roster is as notable for those who have decided against running as for those who have decided to take the plunge.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Indiana Rep. Mike Pence and South Dakota Sen. John Thune have opted out. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels vows a decision is near and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin has yet to make her motive known.

All told, the Republican field encompasses about a dozen hopefuls who have declared their intentions or are preparing to. Among them are Minnesota representative Michele Bachmann, a contender, some say, to inherit Huckabee's religious voters; former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, the possible beneficiary of the social conservative votes Huckabee would have taken; former ambassador to China Jon Huntsman; and Romney, the former Massachusetts governor.

Newt Gingrich, who announced his campaign last week, will indubitably have to deal with copious questions surrounding his personal life, in particular his two failed marriages and his history of infidelity - though he begs possible supporters to "look at who I am today."

And, well, there is always Ron Paul, the libertarian with a devoted fan base.

Some moron on the campus of Louisiana State University takes a flag from a war memorial and lights it on fire. He is arrested on a number of charges. And then another moron decides to legally burn a flag the following week in protest of the arrest. He is disuaded by 1000 protestors, including many veterans.

And so comes the knee jerk reaction for a Constitutional amendment against flag burning. But such an amendment would be in contradiction to what the Constitution was written for. Anyone who burns a flag is a moron. But a Constitutional amendment against flag burning is an oxymoron.

The flag is just a symbol of something much greater. Destroy it and it can be replaced. Destroy what it stands for and that is much more difficult to replace.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, Bill Clinton, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, John Ensign and scores of others - a long list of politicians who strayed in their private lives and hurt their public lives.

But did they violate the public trusts, or just the trust of their wives and family?

Each story is different and offer different degrees of arguments. But if an elected official does his job well and doesn't lie to the public, is it any of our business what he does in his personal life?

I ask the question because it is up to each of us individually to decide. It's the great thing about America - when it comes to our vote, we all get to decide what matters.

I started a list of words and phrases that have been either abused or have been used well past their experation date. So far they are ...

"Whatever" - as a dismissive verbal surrender

"Talk to the Hand" - See Whatever

"Hip" - Unless you fall and break one

"Peace Out" - even if you are Ryan Seacrest

"You know what I'm Sayin?" "You know what I Mean?" You Feel me?" - No I don't want to feel you and I usually have no Idea what you are "sayin" or what you mean.

"Like" - Like, whene it is like overused and especially like in place of the verb "to say" like "he said like and I was like what?" To be used only when you have a favorable reaction to someone or something or to start a simile.

"Catch you on the rebound" - please don't

"Yikes" - unless you are a comic book character

Keep them coming - I'll do a commentary every week or so and the list will grow

And so Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is not running for President.

There is not much time left for many other candidates. It seems either Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann is getting in. They will creat some buzz - but your top three Republican contenders are Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and John Huntsman.

I would watch Huntsman. He got a lot of positive reviews this weekend campaigning in New Hampshire.

Democrat Kathy Hochul declared an upset victory over Republican Jane Corwin in the special election Tuesday night in the western New York district and Medicare was the defining issue.

According to a Siena College Research Institute poll conducted late last week, 74% of voters who identified Medicare as the top issue supported Hochul.

Democrats seized on the result as evidence that the Republican plan for sweeping changes to Medicare was backfiring, and the GOP was cracking over the issue. On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate voted 57-40 to reject the Medicare plan. Five Republicans voted with the Democrats.

And so the latest effort to cut Medicare to cut the defeict has failed. Everyone knows the defecit must be cut - nobody wants to sacrafice to do it.

Instead of being demonized, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan should be praised for at least trying. Instead his efforts will be attacked and no one will touch Medicare again for years. It should have been sa starting point - instead it's an ending point.

If it went too far, come up with another plan, but don't play politics with something this important.

Shame on those who did.

The Sarah Palin bus tour is a siye to behold. If she is trying to espose the Main Stream Meida as being "lame," as she like to say, she is succeeding.

Literally scores of reporters -- as many as 200 -- are following Palin around as she rides in a painted bus with her family from historic site to historic site and says nothin meaningful about anything. Reporters unlucky enough to be assigned to cover Palin on Memorial Day created a #wheressarah Twitter hashtag as they raced around trying to guess where she would land next. This became necessary because Palin refuses to say where she is going. The media just have to do their best to trip over themselves following her every move. It is a laugh riot.

What would in a just world prompt a round of self-reflection by the national press corps will instead continue indefinitely until Palin gets bored. Here's a look at the lowlights of Palin bus tour coverage so far accorind to Salon.Com.

•Gross overcommitment of resources

According to the AP:

[B]y some counts, more than 200 journalists trooped alongside Palin in Philadelphia ...

And from the Times:

The CNN Express bus, filled with producers, camera operators and on-air talent, sat in Gettysburg for hours Monday, not even sure she was coming.

•Hand-wringing about over-coverage of Palin while engaging in it

A typical example from ABC:

So, if Palin’s goal is to bypass traditional media, the bigger mystery may be why we keep scrambling to cover her like a traditional candidate. ...

As we noted yesterday, there's evidence that despite her ability to get non-stop, almost obsessive (just check your Twitter feed) attention from the press, she garners only a fraction of that interest from voters in her own party.

•Futile attempts to draw meaningful conclusions when none exist

What's clear from her bus tour, though, is that if Palin runs for president, she’ll do it one and one way only: hers.

Washington Post Exhibit B:

No one enjoys tweaking the politico-media establishment more than the former Alaska governor, who believes she has been scorned and ridiculed by that establishment throughout her political career. In that context, running for president would be the ultimate anti-establishment act by the nation’s most unpredictable politician.

•CNN's reference to Palin's "historic bus tour"

(OK, so the network probably meant to refer to the fact that Palin is visiting various Civil War battlefields and history museums. But the slip is too delicious to leave out.)

Finally, keep in mind that Palin has openly stated that she is messing with reporters. "I want them to have to do a little bit of work on a tour like this," she told Fox's Greta van Sustern. "And that would include not necessarily telling them beforehand where every stop is going to be."

Palin, who holds an undergraduate degree in journalism, added: "The media can figure out where we're going if they do their investigative work, or they're going to keep kind of, as you put it, going crazy trying to figure out what we're doing here."

You can love or hate Sarah Palin. But you have to admit, she is getting back at the media with this tour and it is brilliant on so many levels.