Monday, March 20, 2006

How Would a Patriot Act?

As readers of this blog know, I have been very excited about a project I have been working on but which I have not been able to talk about. I now can:

Roughly six weeks ago, I was approached by an editor with a proposal to publish a book based on the ideas and arguments which have been the subject of this blog for the last several months. The idea was to get the book to the market quickly in order for it to have as much of an impact as possible on the current, ongoing and now (thanks to Russ Feingold) intensifying debate over the NSA scandal specifically and, even more so, the radical theories of law-breaking power embraced by the Bush Administration generally.

I have been writing the book for the last five weeks and am about 80% done. The book is entitled How Would a Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok. It is going to be released in early May -- roughly six weeks from now, and will be available on Amazon for pre-ordering shortly. Here is the cover:



The principal reason I am so excited by this book is because, as I have said from the time this scandal first emerged, what will determine the outcome of this law-breaking scandal specifically, and the crisis of lawlessness which we have in our government generally, is whether the public realizes how radical and dangerous this Administration has become and demands that it be held accountable. I have always emphatically believed and have repeatedly said that if Americans are truly informed about how radical and extreme this President has become with regard to the powers he claims he possesses, most Americans will find it intolerable.

At its core, this scandal is not and has never been about the scope of eavesdropping powers which the Government ought to have. It is much more significant than that. We face a genuine and profound crisis as a country because we have a President who has continuously exploited the threat of terrorism and engaged in rank fear-mongering in order to expressly claim the power to act without any checks or limits at all -- including, literally, the power to break the law. And he has been exercising that law-breaking power aggressively and enthusiastically in numerous ways, all of which are radically changing our national political character and the system of government that we have had since our founding.

It is that belief in his own monarchical power that led the President to eavesdrop on Americans in precisely the way that our country, thirty years ago, made it a criminal offense to engage in. And the President's illegal warrantless eavesdropping is but one example which arises out of these truly radical and decisively un-American theories of power which this Administration has adopted and put into practice. The Administration's ideology of lawlessness, in every respect, is contrary to the most basic and fundamental values on which our country was founded and which have defined who we are as a nation for the last 225 years.

Rather than pursue the opportunities that were presented to publish this book through a large publishing company, I am, for many reasons, working instead with an independent publisher. They believe in the arguments advanced by the book, have committed sufficient funding to this project to ensure that the book is aggressively marketed and publicized, and are dedicated to doing everything possible to enable this book to have a real impact on the NSA scandal and, more broadly, on the perception of Americans of this Administration's radical theories of power.

The project editor for the book, Jennifer Nix, was the editor responsible for the publication of George Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, which was published independently and, as a result of Nix's marketing strategies, became one of the best-selling books of 2004, spending weeks on the New York Times' bestseller list. Jennifer also was the acquiring editor for Crashing the Gate, the new book by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga. And the editor of Crashing the Gate, Safir Ahmed, is editing my book as well.

There are some costs and sacrifices involved in publishing a book with an independent publisher rather than a corporate publisher. The advance I received was negligible, which means having to spend several months writing a book and then publicizing it with very little compensation. But I really believe that having a publisher who is motivated by the books' ideas and objectives -- and which is devoted to publishing the book quickly and in a way that ensures the maximum impact on the political conversation and on the resolution of these issues -- will produce the best results on every level. It was not a difficult choice.

The primary value in publishing a book this way is that it enables direct communication with fellow citizens about these issues. It has been clear for some time that our national media -- the entity which has as its function informing citizens about what the Government is doing -- is largely dysfunctional. Due to innumerable factors, it simply does not and cannot perform that critical role any longer. Regardless of one's views of the propriety of the Administration's actions, it is beyond dispute that the theories of executive power which the President has adopted are, to put it mildly, a matter of great controversy and great importance. And yet, it is truly astonishing how little Americans know about any of that because the media has barely discussed any of it.

None of those failures is surprising. After all, the single most significant fact of the last 6 years, in my view, is that we are a country which went to war in 2003 with the overwhelming majority of the country -- 70% -- believing in a complete myth: that the leader of the country which we were invading personally participated in the 9/11 attacks. And they continued to believe it even months after the invasion. The media completely failed to expose the falsity of our government's claims or to even minimally inform the country about what was real and what was not. That fact, by itself, is irrefutable proof that we cannot rely on our national media to inform Americans as to what our Government is doing or to expose the dangers of their actions or even the deceitful nature of their statements.

All of these developments signify just how desperately our country needs new and alternative media for citizens to communicate with one another and to be informed about what our Government is doing. The first order of business, in my view, is creating venues for information and analysis which do not depend upon the rotting, corrupted government-media Beltway vortex. The blogosphere is a critical prong in achieving that. So, too, is creating a mechanism for delivering quick-to-the-market books on current issues of controversy which can convey information and inform citizens outside of the distorting lens of the establishment media.

With her work on publication of both Lakoff's book and Crashing the Gate, Jennifer is a pioneer in those efforts and that is one of the primary reasons I found her proposal so appealing. She has written extensively about the value of publishing books independently as a way of creating alternative publishing systems, and she will post here today on her thoughts and strategies in that regard specifically for this book project.

This law-breaking scandal has never been about liberal or conservative political ideology because the Administration's actions, at their core, are really on assault on the most basic American political values -- values which transcend contemporary political disputes between liberals and conservatives. Just as Al Gore arranged for former Republican Congressman Bob Barr to introduce Gore's inspired speech on the dangers of the Administration's law-breaking, we are currently negotiating with a prominent conservative to write the book's Foreword, in part to illustrate that the dangers posed by the Administration's truly radical seizure of unchecked power ought to alarm all Americans regardless of partisan loyalty or ideology.

Ever since the illegal NSA program was revealed, Republicans, most Beltway Democrats, and virtually all of the national media have collectively insisted that this scandal will have no lasting effect, that it will simply fade away because "the public" does not care about any of it. They repeatedly maintained -- even in the face of all available evidence -- that the public supports the Administration's decision to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight and in violation of the law and will not care if the President breaks some laws here and there in order to "protect" them.

But to all but the most jaundiced and corrupted eyes, these issues have always been far too self-evidently significant for any of that to happen. Right before everyone's eyes, the President got caught breaking the law - deliberately and continuously. He ordered the Administration to engage in conduct which the law, since 1978, has made it a criminal offense -- a felony -- to engage in.

And when he got caught, rather than apologize or express remorse, the President defiantly proclaimed that he would continue to break the law because he believes he has the power to act without restraints, including the restraints of the law. And in response, the Congress, controlled by the President's party and long loyal to him, did nothing other than begin to look for ways to protect the President by rendering legal the very behavior which the law makes it a criminal offense to engage in.

All of that is far too extreme, and far too violative of the deeply instilled political values which even those Americans who are otherwise apathetic instinctively believe in, to allow these issues to simply fade away. Despite the oh-so-sophisticated and all-knowing assurances from our pundit class that this scandal would have no effect (other than to somehow actually help the law-breaking President), and despite the concerted efforts of the Congress to block every investigation into what has occurred, this scandal has not faded away. Quite the contrary, as the events of the last week demonstrate quite conclusively, it is stronger than ever.

As I have pointed out many times, scandals which reveal presidential corruption do not unfold overnight. This post I wrote a few weeks ago sums up my views on what can be done and what needs to be done:


One of the many brilliant attributes of our system of government is that citizens really do serve as a meaningful check on government abuses, and they do so in endless, ever-changing ways. To recognize that fact does not require optimism -- just reality.

Throughout our history, Americans have figured out methods for destroying corrupt institutions and smashing even the most ingrained practices and laws -- and when they could not find ways to do so, they invented new ones. Seemingly invulnerable and omnipotent political figures and movements have been destroyed, all as a result of the actions of citizens who have made large numbers of Americans aware of the need to act.

Whatever systems are in place are in place because they were constructed by human beings. Any systems built by human beings can be torn down and replaced just as easily as they were built. There is nothing invulnerable or omnipotent about the Bush movement or the systems which they have erected in order to fuel their agenda. It can be brought down just as easily as others like it have been destroyed.

All that is needed is for citizens to become aware of just how radical and dangerous their conduct is. It’s happening already, and there is no reason whatsoever to convince oneself of the futility of battling against it. Quite the opposite. There is every reason to believe that it is starting to teeter and just needs a good, hard push to fall and shatter.

Even highly unpopular Presidents are afforded the benefit of the doubt when accused of wrongdoing and it requires significant work, which takes time, to persuade the country that the President really has engaged in serious wrongdoing for which serious consequences are warranted. The President has broken the law repeatedly because, incredibly, he believes he has the power to do so. That development in our country requires serious debate. Sen. Feingold's Censure Resolution has catapulted that debate back into the limelight, where it belongs, and it is my hope that this book can help to inform and advance that debate even further.

138 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:23 AM

    This is GREAT news, Glenn. Just write the book like you do the blog. If it's even half as clear and passionate, it will make a huge impact. And our country needs that! Badly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous8:45 AM

    "It is that belief in his own monarchical power that led the President to eavesdrop on Americans in precisely the way that our country, thirty years ago, made it a criminal offense to engage in."
    Deliberately playing king of the hill. Like some schoolyard punk drawing a line in the dirt with his toe. Doing it illegally, when he could easily have done it legally, just to demonstrate that no-one can or will stop him. It makes me so sick, I've stopped writing in complete sentences.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous8:53 AM

    good luck, Glenn--i can't wait for your book.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous8:56 AM

    Godspeed and good luck. You've got one sale right here.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous9:22 AM

    I was hoping for a book, so this is very welcome news.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous9:57 AM

    I personally will pay for both the book and the shipping of signed copies to Pelosi, Reid, Emmanual, Clinton and any other mouthpiece of the democrats - and if they, or their staff more precisely, don't have time to read the whole thing then have them sent a copy "on tape" - then maybe they'll get it. Naaah, the big discussion yesterday was whether Katie would take $15 million to "read" us the news from the CBS desk or stay at NBC for $16, do you really think she worries about who the tax cuts screwed? Power is a helluva drug, better then speed.
    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous10:06 AM

    FABULOUS. This post just MADE my DAY. I cannot wait for the masses to be exposed to your writing style and intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous10:13 AM

    FABULOUS. This post just MADE my DAY. I cannot wait for the masses to be exposed to your writing style and intellect.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks, Glenn. I assume you'll let us know when we can pre-order or pre-purchase to help finance it. (like for Crashing the Gate). Just let us know.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is nothing invulnerable or omnipotent about the Bush movement or the systems which they have erected in order to fuel their agenda. It can be brought down just as easily as others like it have been destroyed.

    I think it can be brought down, and I think that is going to happen, but it is not going to happen “just as easily” as bringing down other corrupt administrations just because of the pervasiveness of the corruption this time, which includes virtually the entire Republican Party and their accomplices in the media, which is combined with a totally ineffective opposition party.

    I think one of the biggest factors in bringing down this administration and a corrupted media is simply the loss of their credibility. We’ve gone from 70% believing something that was not true to majorities now saying “incompetent” is the word most associated with Bush, followed oh so quickly by “idiot” and “liar.”

    It is on the war in Iraq where they’ve lost credibility most (although Katrina had a huge effect as well). Yesterday, the administration was out touting its talking points that have become a bad joke. Indeed, to believe them you are heading into “conspiracy theory” territory, because you simultaneously have to believe that everything you see on TV and read in the papers is a distortion, that all public opinion polls have been “rigged” (to use one of our trolls terms), or if you believe the polls, then you must believe that the majority of Americans support the terrorists, to use the administration’s hyperbole.

    With their credibility in tatters, the stage is set for one more big scandal to “breach the levee” of this administration’s defenses (which is nothing but offense, since they can’t defend their actions).

    I believe that this NSA scandal and the forthcoming constitutional crisis on this issue will be, ultimately, the last gasp for this corrupt administration. Once the public grasps the radical nature of Bush’s actions – that he claims the right to break the law without restraints and oversights – the game is over.

    Right now they are trying to substitute a “symbol” of oversight for the real thing, and they are co-opting a corrupt Republican–controlled Senate to do that. It’s like Bush marching with sleeves rolled up with firefighters – it was a symbol. But once the public finds out that they were marching to nowhere, and the firefighters were taken away from real duties where they could do some good for a fake photo-op, the symbol loses potency. And that’s what must be done with this sham of oversight, and their fake symbol that somehow the president is complying with the law.

    What needs to be done is to destroy their symbols that protect them. Their bogus “with the terrorist” talking points, their straw man argument that opponents don’t want them to monitor Al Qaeda, and the rest.

    Now that the public is dubious of Bush and his intentions, it’s time to break down the barricades they’ve put up. Glenn’s book sounds like a good battering ram to me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:29 AM

    Good luck with this project, Glenn. You've got one sale, and now I'm looking forward to reading it with bated breath. I suggest you send courtesy copies to all the spineless Senators, which would be all of them, excepting only Feingold, Harkin, and Boxer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous10:32 AM

    Wonderful news Glen. And it sounds like you have made a great decision on the publisher. I'll pick up the tab to send copies to Warner, Allen and Cantor of Virginia when it comes out.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous10:39 AM

    Hi Glenn, Wow! A book! Do you ever sleep? Can't wait to read it.
    Feel free to quote me any time.
    My fave: "IMPEACH!", she said acting like a patriot.
    Take care, Jan

    ReplyDelete
  14. Great news indeed. I have a sister in that most Republican of states, otherwise known as Utah, who has sadly morphed from a relative liberal to voting for Bush in the last election. I can't wait to send the book to her. A little bit of light in a lot of darkness. Thanks so much for all your work and effort. As sad and depressing as it can sometimes get, your blog is enough in itself to keep me hopeful that Americans can and will wake up to what is going on.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous10:49 AM

    Great, great news! Count me in. I intend to buy at least a couple of copies, because here in Alabama, people need all the information they can get about these corrupted criminals. People around here are slowly, slowly turning away from the Bushies. This book could be the final straw.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous10:52 AM

    I will be very interested in seeing how the argument is brought out in the book.

    One concern: is this going to simply preach to the converted (something the likes of Regency House and ilk manage to make megabucks doing) or can it actually penetrate the RWNM? I'm hoping its the former.

    Good title, btw. Very catchy.

    ReplyDelete
  17. this is great news glenn — it further demonstrates your commitment to elevate and maintain a high level of discourse on the serious issues at hand regarding the direction this government is taking our country. i look forward to reading the book.

    but at the risk of being a wet towel, i must point out that you may be somewhat disappointed if you believe that your book will make a dent in the national discourse on these issues, especially in the short term.

    your premise for writing the book presumes that the public is composed of passive consumers of information who make "wrong" choices after being fed "lies" and only need to be fed the "truth" in order to lead them to the "right" choices. this is a common presumption: i have repeatedly heard the same argument, that "they would agree with me if they only knew what i know", fervently argued by both sides of any debate.

    people are not passive in their beliefs; they often form beliefs first and then actively seek out the "facts" that support those beliefs. "facts" that contradict their pre-existing beliefs or come from sources they don't trust are ignored. this is how what one wants to believe becomes what one believes.

    those folks who agree with the premise that the president is well within perogative to act as he does will reject your book on its premise alone. these are the people who watch fox and listen to rush and if they are savvy may even read powerline and michelle malkin. glenn greenwald is not on their regular news beat, not on their list of trusted sources, who will no doubt not be recommending it. those like myself who would never buy one of michelle malkin's books, who already agree with you and consider you a trusted source will be the ones buying your book. everyone interprets the media through a filter; no one is immune to this behavior, but most need to be reminded how they participate in it.

    most beliefs — often the ones most stubbornly defended — are based on personal life experiences, often very early experiences, which is what makes them so hard to change. it is impossible to change the past. it is therefore very difficult to argue against "i was there!" or "it happened to me!" or "it happened to my relative/friend!" everyone has anecdotes such as these.

    usually it takes another significant personal experience, such as a death or accident, or birth or marriage, to give a person pause long enough to meaningfully re-evaluate their perspective.

    in a nutshell, people make choices based on what they believe, which is not based on fact, but instead is based on what they want to believe. i am of course speaking very generally here since i can't neatly cover in a single comment what people want to believe and why.

    so how do we change people's beliefs? it's a matter of battling inertia. a meaningful life experience such as described above provides one type of force but it is not something within our power to create. but great inertia can also be overcome by the steady application of smaller amounts of force over a longer amount of time. the republicans took 20 years to get where they are now but we can already see in their falling poll numbers their gains reversing as their supporters slowly succumb to the steady drumbeat of countervailing news regarding iraq, katrina, dubai and a host of issues. our job therefore is to make sure that drumbeat gets louder and louder and never stops. your book no doubt will contribute to that effort.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Congrats, Glen, I'm looking forward to the book! That's terrific news.

    Jeff

    ReplyDelete
  19. I love your work, Glenn, and am very glad and excited about your book. However, I can't stop thinking about something. That is, that this country was founded on bloody sand and, until we make it right with the human beings that were already on this land when it was "discovered", we will not prosper. It doesn't matter how correctly we interpret the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, or how hallowed we make them. We slaughtered the folks and took their land in the name of our own "freedom" and in order to line our own pocketbooks. It's still happening today. The Native American is the poorest, least thought-about group in this country. And we're still trying to take what land they've got left. Check out the Shoshone today. I guess that's okay though? Do it to them, but not to us?
    How Would a Patriot Act? I consider Red Cloud to be a patriot.
    I know I'm preaching to the choir. I just can't seem to get this off my mind. No offense intended.
    I find it fascinating that the only other president to be censured was Andrew Jackson, of the I-signed-off-on-the-forced-removal-act Jacksons. Now his image and likeness is on our twenty dollar bill. What a great country!

    P.S. Don't you just love that Jon Stewart?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous11:31 AM

    This is fantastic news, and I can't wait to read it. You are a very gifted and talented writer. Congratulations!

    I still can't help thinking that, like Feingold's Censure Resolution, the timing might have had more direct impact if you had waited until November. The rightwing noise maching is so powerful, well-oiled and poised to crush all in its way that I feel the only way to succeed in November is with some surprise attack, planning and coordination in bringing all of these issues back before the American people just before they head to the voting machines.

    Maybe the paperback edition will come out then...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous11:33 AM

    What is so great about the book, and the title, is that it is about time we reclaim the mantle of Patriotism. A true patriot defends the values of the country, not attacks them. Patriotism is about sticking up for the constitution, not violating it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Congratulations, Glenn. If you have a press kit type page I'll pass it on to friends in the MSM. Give 'em hell.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous11:55 AM

    Well, its been a couple hours and our resident contrarians haven't made a peep yet. Could it be they can't muster a decent argument here?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous11:59 AM

    Bravo Glenn! Just in the nick of time. It was reading your blog that changed my entire life, so I know how powerful it can be when one is exposed to the right words, written in the right way, in terms of opening up one's eyes.

    And I do think you should consider charging an extra fee for signed copies of your book for those who won't be able to attend book signings. It will be an honor to have a signed copy of a book written by one of the most truly patriotic writers on the scene.

    You have to really love this country to be as alarmed as many of us have become about what we see happening. It goes way beyond fear for ourselves. It is fear for the continued existence of our Constitutional Republic that is gripping our hearts in icy fear.

    I am so glad the word "patriot" will be in your title because many of us who have recently and unexpectedly found ourselves in concert with members of the "opposition" party, or rather certain members of the opposition party like Feingold, have been able to make that adjustment because we are, more than anything else, more than any policy differences can obscure, patriots.

    PS. David Shaughnessy, welcome back!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous12:09 PM

    Glenn--

    You've got a willing (and as I've learned from FDL, fast) group of research assistants should there be anything you want tracked down. Take two minutes to leave a short note on the blog (now that the cat's out of the bag)and the answer (with links) will appear shortly. Could save you some time and get the book out faster.

    You're answering your book's question by example.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous12:10 PM

    Excellent! I look forward to reading it. Nice cover!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous12:12 PM

    I now post this new article by Paul Craig Roberts in its entirety and urge everyone to read every word.

    March 20, 2006
    A Collapsing Presidency
    Will it take the country down with it?


    by Paul Craig Roberts

    The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center finds that President Bush's support among the American people has fallen to 33 percent. Even more devastatingly, the survey finds that people's most frequently used one-word description of President Bush is "incompetent."

    The chief chaplain for the New York City Corrections Department told a Tucson audience that "the greatest terrorists in the world occupy the White House." Two years ago when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was suppressing demonstrations at the Republican National Convention, the chief chaplain would have been fired for his remarks, but not today.

    Abroad among peoples who formerly looked to America for leadership, American atrocities in Iraq have created sympathy and support for the Iraqi resistance.

    When the Bush administration gets in trouble, it turns to war, which has worked for it in the past. Thus, this past week there was live coverage of "Operation Swarmer," which occupied a solid day on CNN and Fox "News." The venerable Washington Monthly reports that the hyped "assault on Samarra" was nothing but a Potemkin operation – a set propaganda piece to demonstrate U.S. military prowess and the battle-ready "new Iraqi army," only there were no insurgents in Samarra to battle. The much-hyped "Operation Swarmer" was a photo op for TV cameras as troops fired into empty desert.

    One can imagine the thoughts in Bush's mind: "Thank goodness I didn't capture bin Laden. Maybe he will strike again and bail me out."

    What is going to rescue Bush? Not the Republican Party. A few Republican congressmen, such as Walter Jones, are trying to get a debate going, but Republicans believe that they are stuck to the fate of their man. There is no one within the administration to turn Bush toward diplomacy and away from coercion.

    Created on the principle that "you are with us or against us," Bush's administration is all of one mind. They are all neocons. There are no real conservatives or traditional Republicans in the Bush administration. This is the first administration in my lifetime in which there is no debate. The absence of debate means there is no check on reckless and ill-advised policies and corrupt schemes.

    Neocons don't believe in debate. They specialize in slandering critics and stamping out debate. Dissent is not possible within the Bush administration, because dissent is equated with treason and anti-Americanism. "You are with us or against us." Increasingly, Republicans demonize their critics as "abettors of terrorism." The Republicans' intolerance for debate makes many Americans uneasy about the real purpose of the $385 million detention camp that Halliburton is building in the U.S. for the Bush administration.

    Neocons don't believe in diplomacy. They believe in coercion. Neocons denigrate diplomacy as the epitome of weakness. Neocons slap down diplomacy before it can rise. The Iranians offered talks, and neocon National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley immediately slapped down the offer as "simply a device by the Iranians to try to divert pressure that they are feeling." The Bush neocons are bent on war with Iran. They don't want any talks. In their books, neocons have demonized Muslims in the same way that the Nazis demonized Jews. Demonization makes talks impossible.

    On March 17, William Rivers Pitt declared Bush to be "deranged, disconnected, and dangerous." But what else to expect from a neocon administration that declares that it creates its own reality and mocks its critics for being "reality-based"? Neocons insanely believe that American power can be used to recreate the world in America's image. Neocons are dangerous because they really believe that the U.S. can invade the Middle East, deracinate Islam, and install puppet governments.

    These disconnected neocons are not shaken by facts or by results. Their evil eye falls on U.S. field commanders and CIA analysts who declare that the U.S. military is creating insurgents faster than it can kill them.

    Creating your own reality means that when you cannot put down a resistance based in 5 million Iraqi Sunnis, you attack 70 million Iranians, who are allied with 15 million Shia in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine.

    The Bush administration is sending every signal that it is determined to go to war with Iran. Will the rest of the world block the American aggression, or will the rest of the world decide that it is in the world's best interest for the hubris-driven hegemon to exhaust itself in conflict in the Middle East?

    A thank you to readers: I appreciate the support demonstrated by your anger at the neocon Web site, FrontPageMag, for slandering me. But to put a different light on the matter, let me ask you, what would you think of me if I were praised by FrontPageMag? Isn't it preferable to be denounced by the neocon brownshirts? What better secures my reputation?

    Neocons are incapable of debate, because they don't believe in it. Neocons rely on disinformation and deceit to impose their agenda.

    Neocons do not believe in the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties, the separation of powers, or the Geneva Conventions. According to published reports, President Bush described the Constitution as "a scrap of paper." Bush's attorney general, vice president, and secretary of defense have openly defended the Bush administration's practice of torture, violations of habeas corpus, and illegal spying. These high officials, in violation of their oath of office, have openly declared that Bush, as commander in chief, is above the law.

    What American ever expected to see the safeguards against tyranny put in place by the Founding Fathers removed in the name of providing security against terrorists by a president who purports to believe in original intent?

    Neocons are Jacobins. They are a foreign import and do not share our American values. Neocons are a grave danger to the United States and to the world. Neocons have led America into two gratuitous ongoing wars that cannot be won, and they are determined to lead us into more wars. It is our duty to defend our country and to oppose these evil people.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Arrrrgh’s comment about “those folks” who agree that the president is well within his prerogative to act as he has and who listen to Rush, Fox News, and read Powerline etc. are not going to be open to the premise of the book in the first place, prompts a question: just how large is the “cult” who is beyond persuasion?

    My guess would be 25% of the public who is lost cause. I think the very title of this book will go a long way toward reaching out to those who are open to such arguments, but how many can we just write off immediately?

    (My apologies to those who consider this question off topic, but I recently received an e-mail from an Australian friend who suggests that because of America’s “religiosity” and obsessive “patriotism” that the “cult” (those beyond reach) are actually in the majority here in the U.S., and I’m trying to convince him that things aren’t quite that bad.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. I check the sales on Crashing the Gate over at Barnes & Noble and I noticed that it started out ranked as 12,206 on 3/9 and last night was at 909! I think Jennifer not only is in touch with the topic but with the business of distribution as well. With Crashing the Gates and others currently coming out and now yours entering the fray in May the exposure, reasoning and call to action will finally be on the table. Only one question, so you practice law, handle this blog and write a book as well ... mmm what kind of vitamins are you on Atlas?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Anonymous12:23 PM

    Great news, Glenn.

    Is the prominent conservative Bruce Fein?

    ReplyDelete
  31. aaargh makes some excellent points about persuading others to confront their illusions and self-deception. As aaargh notes, the major obstacle to changing someone's mind is the fact that most people listen to what they want to hear or--when they actually have to listen to someone with a different opinion--hear what they want to hear.

    The idea that information alone changes people's minds--besides the epistemological problems--misses the need for actually getting someone to listen or want to listen to that information. Socrates overcame this problem by going out into the marketplace and cornering people. He then set about undermining their preconceptions. In the modern world, the public sphere--the agora of Socrates' world, where people congregated and made themselves available for discourse--has shrunk to the enclosed, insular world of private rumination. Most people in the blogosphere simply have more chances to select sources of info they already believe in and edit out anything that does not.

    Times when people do seek out new ways of looking at the world come during crises. These include personal, social, or cultural crises. The present situation in America presents the crisis in terms of the failure of the Iraq war to live up to the prognostications of Bush et al.

    If there is any willingness to listen to an argument like Feingold's, it's because the prudential debacle created by this admin is finally affecting people where they live: friends and loved ones killed or crippled in the war, national treasure gutted and frittered away in a dubious overseas military adventure, failure to confront natural catastrophes and their aftermath.

    I suggest that a reason why people respond positively to Feingold's censure is because they want Bush to be held accountable for these missteps. They are not opposed to wiretapping and executive power so much as they are his ineptitude. I believe that were another terrorist attack to occur in the US, most of those who are against the NSA eavesdropping would quickly support it and blame all of us who oppose it for the attack.

    All of these comments, of course, suppose that the real audience of any critique and persuasive strategy must be aimed at the electorate per se. As I have suggested earlier, it's not they who make the decisions. It's the insiders of both parties. Until they can be convinced that a censure serves their purposes, they will simply play opossum or, at best, pay some lip-service to it while they position themselves to exploit it for their own agendas.

    The threat posed by Bush's version of executive power and the use of technology to expand that power will not be seen by many in power, the insiders, as dire enough. No doubt, many in power will want to keep that possibility in reserve for the time when they eventually gain power. Many Dems see what the President has done as a possibility that they want to have at their disposal in times of crisis.

    These rather pessimistic comments should not lead you, Glenn, to think that I am not happy that you’re publishing this work. I believe that the book and Feingold’s personal act of bravery that inspired it are important. Obviously, just the fact that I am writing this means that I see your work as a valuable endeavor. It opens up the possibility for a debate that’s needed.

    How far-reaching that debate is, though, will depend on how deeply people see that the legal issues you address are the surface phenomena of a much larger problem. These include the culture of fear and distrust that the Bushites have shown is so easily manipulated and exploited for an agenda that is truly much darker and insidious than most are willing to acknowledge.

    It is this culture of a post-industrial, postmodern world wherein people seek certainty and meaning in a world of massive uncertainty that rules people’s natural disposition to the truth and the good. It is this world where the natural disposition to the good is obscured and stunted to such an extent that they can’t even recognize that bombing innocent men and women is wrong, that torture is always wrong, and that an emperor with absolute power threatens their freedom. But I begin to veer off-topic…

    Anyway, congratulations Glenn. I look forward to reading this very important book.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anonymous12:33 PM

    I forgot to comment on what a spectacular cover your book has!

    It must take an awful lot of courage to write a book with a title like that.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Zack, the numbers of the religious right vary--anywhere from 30 to 100M. The question is, how many of these are immune to persuasion. I have argued that with regard to the issue undertaken by Glenn is one that many evangelicals might respond to, especially with regard to 1) an exectuive branch taking on god-like powers (contrary to the initial Protestant-led movement for representative govt dating from Luther and Calvin), and 2) use of technology to consolidate power, something many Xtian dispensationalists see as indicative of the end-time figure the Beast 666.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous12:48 PM

    Our coutry may be able to survive because of people like you Glenn. I think our constitution and democracy are in the balance right now. I hope they survive. Thanks for the fight.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous12:56 PM

    i just want to say thanx glenn for this site, and for taking a vigorous voice on this topic.

    i don't comment usually because it's out of my league, (mook with a computer).

    i read this site everyday to know what is going on with the illegal NSA spying program, the same way i read juan cole to know what is actually happening in iraq.

    good luck with your book. hopefully we will be hearing your cogent arguments on the talking head news shows and your voice will help america wake up to what is a very real, and present danger...

    crossing my fingers.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous12:58 PM

    Here's wishing you success with the new book Glenn. And here's hoping it will have the impact I know that we all hope it will.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous1:07 PM

    Glenn,

    Congratulations!

    Please keep us advised on any book tour plans and media appearances!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous1:13 PM

    How would a patriot act? Like Glenn Greenwald.

    This book takes the subject of Bush's lawlessness out of just the blogosphere, and puts it on (I predict) the NYT bestseller list, where it belongs. The issue gains momentum, and can't be ignored.

    And the universe unfolds as it should.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous1:24 PM

    Took me a while to realize the guerilla-tactic brilliance of it: the Republicans have already done the marketing for your

    PATRIOT
    ACT

    title!

    I am not worthy.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous1:41 PM

    Glenn, that is the best damned news I've heard for a long time. No one deserves it more. Good for you!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Here's another great headline from our "liberal" media, "Many have doubts on spying, but Feingold stands alone on censure" at http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/14142031.htm . One of many that I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous2:00 PM

    Glenn,

    So is the Soros money, moveon.org money, or Saudi Oil Money that is funding your publishing activities. Have you bothered to know whom it is that is behind your new book? Are you prevented by an NDA from disclosing the true funding sources for your book? Are you afraid to disclose them? Have you had the intellectual curiosity to even research whose money is behind the curtains or did you just stop with the curtains in order to preserve your plausible deniability?

    Do you have the courage to answer any of these questions, AND to state specifically what you have done and NOT done to research their answers?

    Says the "Dog"

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous2:01 PM

    THANK YOU GLENN!

    I'll do all I can to help sell more copies of it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous2:09 PM

    Looking forward to the book, Glen. (And nice to see The Dog, in character, falling into attacking the messenger, since he can't engage the argument.)

    Sullivan has a couple of good posts from Sunday I'd call people's attention to: One is a lengthy quote from Bruce Bartlett, who makes the case that the kind of fear-mongering Bush has engaged in externally is simply an extension of how he handles things internally: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/
    2006/03/the_myth_of_bus.html

    Another piece is an email describing why Feingold's censure resolution is good politically for Dems (completely aside from it being good on the merits): http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/
    2006/03/the_censure_opt.html

    Interesting stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous2:16 PM

    I could be reading this wrong, but did "The Dog" seem to imply that Glenn is a shill for the terrorists?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Thanks, Glenn. I look forward to the book.

    I presume that if you have been given the key to the VLWC strongbox, you are prevented from revealing its existence. A small price to pay for ONE HUNDRED FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS.

    Who cares about selling out when you can cover yourself completely in 24 karat gold?

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous2:19 PM

    Bravo, Dog. I was starting to worry we would hear anything from your side of the isle today.

    Then again, do you really want to start this line of questioning? Especially given the right's slip-shod tendencies with its own 'research'?

    A recent and discredited 'document dump' comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous2:20 PM

    Bravo, Dog. I was starting to worry we would hear anything from your side of the isle today.

    Then again, do you really want to start this line of questioning? Especially given the right's slip-shod tendencies with its own 'research'?

    A recent and discredited 'document dump' comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous2:44 PM

    First, Good for you Glenn. Congrats.

    Second, the whole issue of presidential lawbreaking just entered into a new stage: wiretapping, though a real harm, is a somewhat abstract. Warrantless physical searches, on the other hand, are not. People tend to have a far more visceral reaction to violation of private spaces by police forces, and the whole "if you're talking to Osama" talking point is shown to be the utter BS it is - I mean, these searches have apparently been of defense lawyers' offices. Maybe even the kneejerk cultists can see how violating not only the 4th ammendment but att'y-client confidentiality is, like, kinda' a bad thing.
    it's front and center, here:

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/home.htm

    ReplyDelete
  50. Go get 'em, Glenn. My offer of help still stands, though it sounds like you don't need it.

    I can think of one prominent conservative who would probably be happy to write the foreward: Bruce Fein.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous2:57 PM

    Great news! I am already in line for a copy. Any chance we can get early orders through some other outlet than Amazon.com? I won't give them my money since they give all of theirs to the Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous3:09 PM

    Good work is always its own reward. Kudos Glenn.

    But do you really think that it will stir anyone to change their vote? Here is my expectations of elections to come:

    1) Republicans will vote for Republicans or center-right candidates.
    2)Bush will be labeled an incompetent and incapable of acting like a true-Republican (you can see this already). The answer to the current crisis will not involve a rethinking of conservatism, but support for a "true conservative".
    3) Liberals will be shunned by conservatives because "they would do worse". This is related to #2. If your worldview is founded on conservative values=Republicans and everything else=Liberals, then you will never vote for a Liberal. You'll just look for a better Republican.
    4) Diabold. Seriously. Why wouldn't they fix elections? Because it's wrong?
    5) Wedge issues. Do you think that Gay Rights/Marriage will ever go away? Add to this Immigration, Abortion, etc, and you have well targeted election missiles.
    6) The media (cable) being a business and not about journalism. This is not getting better with time.

    I don't think that Democrats are capable of countering any of this in the next couple of election cycles. McCain is still a "maverick" and will get the conservative support to save us from Bush. Liberals won't be considered.

    But then again, I'm in a very pessimistic mood today.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous3:13 PM

    Forgot to add:

    The solution, IMHO, is to point out that Republicans do not have conservative values. Dean is right on the money here, by pointing out that Liberals support life, healthcare, balanced budgets, strong defense, privacy, consumer rights, minority rights, free trade, etc.

    If Dems don't start to change the public's view that the Republican party is the party of "conservative values", then they will never get away with anything.

    caveat: "never" should never be used in any prediction. Ever.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous3:17 PM

    Replace president with Conservatives Run Amok.

    It is Bush's constituency that has betrayed American and Christian values. Say it.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous3:51 PM

    lewp, I was on the Andrew Sullivan site yesterday and was very impressed with the same two items you pointed out, which I emailed around. Wonder if Andrew Sullivan will step up to the plate? Looks like he has potential.

    To the dog: please change your name. You disgrace the canine species.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous4:10 PM

    Any chance we can get early orders through some other outlet than Amazon.com? I won't give them my money since they give all of theirs to the Republicans.

    They do? You mean to this present administration recently?

    Is that really true?

    BTW, is Glenn going to be on the Internet live now? On this site?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous4:10 PM

    Please come to Austin with your new book. We live in the "belly of the beast" here. Your writing and insight are most welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous4:50 PM

    This is so exciting! Congratulations on the book, Glenn. I plan to buy a bunch and release them into the wild.

    Excellent job on To the Point, too!

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'll buy a copy (and that's saying a lot, since I usually only borrow from the library).

    You were great today on To the Point, Glenn. Good on you for not rising to that little weasel Ponnururru's bait. I would definitely have lost my temper and started calling him names.

    You have an important voice, Greenwald. I imagine it's heady stuff for a young dude like you, but you're doing something necessary, and you're having an effect.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Glenn,

    Count me in for a copy of the book, and please autograph it! When the revolution comes and you are enshrined as one of the patriots who made it happen,
    it'll be worth a fortune on Ebay.

    Appreciate what you are doing for our democracy...!

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous5:29 PM

    Glenn Greenwald, following in the splendid tradition of Thomas Paine and his publication of Common Sense in 1776. Bravo!

    Now I'm nervous for you. This is a big deal, and I hope you can complete it and polish it to a high gloss, despite the rush job. Don't forget to take a break to think and do something else for a while, before you give the book the last once-over with a critical eye...

    [And yes, the title is inspired. Some detail nitpicking: The font of the words in italics could be improved to my eye -- it's a different font than the very appealing font used for "Patriot Act" isn't it? But maybe it's an old-style font selection on purpose? I might also have chosen a cover photo of the actual script of the Constitution, highlighting its We, the People phrase with a quill pen, instead of the much more recent Statue of Liberty, which seems more symbolic than substantive.]

    On the proposed Tyranny Enabling Act of 2006 legislation of DeWine et al:

    The less I see mentioned about this ATROCIOUS effort at blatantly unConstitutional lawmaking, the more it concerns me. The language is so imprecise and nonspecific that its purpose and intent can't even be firmly established. It appears to "legalize" using a secretly compiled list of groups and organizations and their probable members and affiliaties and associates as the justification for monitoring unnamed and unidentified U.S. citizens EN MASSE BY A "PROGRAM" INSIDE THE UNITED STATES, based only on the alleged likelihood of said groups and organizations intending to engage in a potential act of international terrorism against the United States or its "interests" anywhere in the world, and provided only that ONE person of those unnamed others subject to being monitored is probably a member or affiliate or associate of such a group on the secret list. Remember that FISA, the "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" is ALL ABOUT and ONLY ABOUT "foreign intelligence surveillance" INSIDE OUR DOMESTIC BORDERS. If warrantless monitoring OUTSIDE OUR BORDERS catches U.S. persons on U.S. soil communicating across our border with monitored terrorists, no harm no foul. FISA does not apply to such a person's communications, unless and until such U.S. persons are intentionally targeted for surveillance, or their communications are captured from inside our own borders.

    So all I can conclude is that the "program" of surveillance being covered up by the Executive Branch, as enabled by people like DeWine, is MASSIVELY and INTRUSIVELY more widespread and outrageous than we have been led to believe. It appears to me to be FAR beyond ANYTHING FISA currently allows in its conscious effort to conform to the protections of the Fourth Amendment. If the American people had any inkling of what was really going on, I am sure they would be simply appalled at the violation of their privacy in this computer age. And I sincerely doubt it is helping to track down, or helping to prevent attacks from, terrorists who are located inside the United States better than following FISA could, or would, and may very well be harming that very effort instead.

    I consider this ongoing NSA spying to be absolutely illegal, absolutely unConstitutional, and absolutely chilling totalitarian activity being conducted by our Executive Branch (without impediment to date from our Legislative Branch), until it has been PROVEN otherwise (to the full Intelligence Committees of the Congress). I don't think you can honestly read the meaning of this proposed legislation any other way.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous5:32 PM

    A suggestion for the book:

    Include lots of links, psuedo links of course, to websites, sources, etc. Thne, on your website, list post all of those links, by chapter, in the order in which hey appear in the book, or with other identifiers.

    That way, as we read your book with our computer running, we can click on your links as we go.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anonymous6:02 PM

    Put me down for a bulk buy!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous6:03 PM

    eyes wide open, why are you always posting entire articles by Paul Craig Roberts? I'm not necessarily bothered by it or anything, but does that really belong within this comments section? A link and select quotes would accomplish the same thing. Just a friendly suggestion.

    But anyway, from that article:
    "One can imagine the thoughts in Bush's mind: "Thank goodness I didn't capture bin Laden. Maybe he will strike again and bail me out.""

    Yeah, maybe. Sure. I smell a nice surprise coming later this year. Mark my words, there WILL be significant terrorist activity within the US (if not an attack) before this election. Yes, the Republicans have said they want to gain more seats and prevent filibusters, well another catalyzing and terrifying event will provide them just that. I know I sound irrational by saying this, but it adds up perfectly for me when taken in light of the actions of these guys in recent years. The White House would relish another terrorist attack, and after their deeply questionable "handling" of 9/11 and the blocking of subsequent investigations (not to mention the recent downplaying of bin Laden from the public conscience) I fully expect more to come.

    October surprise indeed...

    These people have taken things so far now, do you really think they will surrender their power grab under any circumstances? I'm happy to be labelled a conspiracy theorist because that's exactly what I am. I'm just waiting to see my prediction come true, and I fully believe that it will.

    Until then, look for more thwarted terror plans in the near future, specifically one thwarted by the NSA "wiretapping" (read: mass data mining) program, thus proving it's necessity. Or was that what that phony LA terror plot was all about?

    This message brought to you by Saudi oil interests. They fund all of my posting. But all kidding aside, what the hell are you talking about dog? You are embarrassing yourself heavily here little buddy, just like I'm sure I did above.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous6:03 PM

    I do hope Mr. Greenwald includes a long list of what can be done by average people. I'm already sold on the thesis of the book, as are many of my friends and fellow workers, but we're sort of at a bit of a loss as to what to do. I vote in every election, write letters to the local paper, stay informed, engage in discourse, etc., but I'm not an elected official or anyone really important. And when you're up against idiots like The Dog, facts are pretty much useless.

    I fear greatly for our country. I fear for my family. I fear for myself. I don't worry about terrorism; I worry about the deficit, the rise in religious fundamentalism and the threat of a national theocracy, and I worry about the hollowing out of our economy and ideals. It blows my mind daily that Bush and his criminal conspiracy of an administration is bringing this nation to its knees, and preparing for a dark future of domestic internment, computerized surveillance, and the sacrifice of privacy upon the altar of national security.

    I hope your book makes a difference. If it doesn't, what's left?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous6:07 PM

    Wolf Blitzer on CNN about to talk about the "suprising talk about impeachment."

    Headline says "Bush admits to having used "Trial and Error" approach in Iraq.

    Trial and Error with 100,000 lives?

    Finally, did anyone catch Bush's speech today to a group of students?

    He's losing it. It's sort of frightening, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous6:10 PM

    midnightride said:
    "So all I can conclude is that the "program" of surveillance being covered up by the Executive Branch, as enabled by people like DeWine, is MASSIVELY and INTRUSIVELY more widespread and outrageous than we have been led to believe."

    Yes, and the media has conviently characterized it as a wiretapping program (and used that word repeatedly) when it is anything but. Just like prisoner "abuse".

    I highly recommend reading this article (or the book it is reviewing, naturally) if you haven't already:
    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=9633

    "But nothing else in Risen's book rivals the NSA story in importance, revealing that the President not only authorized the NSA to eavesdrop on Americans without seeking court orders, but to listen in a new way, by intercepting a large volume of communications among categories of people, and then analyzing or "mining" the data in those calls for suspicious patterns that might offer "potential evidence of terrorist activity.""

    It's the Total Information Awareness program, renamed "the program" when forcibly presented to the public. I don't understand why this news didn't cause more of a shockwave when it hit, because the nature of "the program" is tantamount in importance regarding what is happening right now.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous6:22 PM

    Very nice job at getting the main points across on NPR today. Did anyone else notice that the host of the show seemed a bit surprised (impressed?) by Glenn's comments, especially when they went to a quick break right after he was speaking. I don't know, just something in the way he said "serious political discussion".

    Also, since I rarely pay attention to who the right-wing pundits are, was I the only one who thought that Glenn's conservative counter-point was a woman at first? I was mystified when he was referred to as a "he" after missing the first couple minutes of the program.

    ReplyDelete
  69. eyes wide: His speech was truly horrendous. Talk about torture--watching this man try to clearly answer a question, no much less answer THE question, is painful.

    ReplyDelete
  70. eyes wide: BTW Did you see Blitzer take Mehlman behind the woodshed? Blitzer took on Mehlman's tired and lame rhetoric and actually seemed prepared with facts. Mehlman looked taken aback. I wonder whether Wolf'll get one of those late at night calls from Karl "The Hitman" Rove tonight?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous6:39 PM

    I don't worry about terrorism; I worry about the deficit, the rise in religious fundamentalism and the threat of a national theocracy, and I worry about the hollowing out of our economy and ideals.

    You worry about "the threat of a national theocracy" more than terrorism? I assume you're concerned about the establishment of some species of a Christian theocracy and not a Muslim one (a la Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.), correct?

    If what you say is actually true, and if you're representative of Glenn's potential customers, I fear his book sales won't be adequate enough to cover the printing and distribution costs. After all, the number of Americans worried about the imminent establishment of a Christian "theocracy" more than they're worred about another al qaeda attack is probably fewer than those who truly believe that last night they were abducted by little green men in flying saucers.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Anonymous6:45 PM

    Did anyone catch Ken Mehlman's interview just now with Wolf Blitzer?

    I hope Glenn will address that interview. Ken used "The War on Terror" about twenty times. In fact, there was little else to what he said EXCEPT:

    He kept stating that the American People want the President to do EVERYTHING THAT IS LEGAL to combat the War on Terror. He kept repeating that everything the President was doing was legal.

    I hope someone gets to rebut that on CNN.

    He did bring up the one issue that I think they will most rely on going into November. That is trying to scare people into what will happen if Rep. John Conyers and others are allowed to get to control things. He said, I think, that Conyers would be head of the Judiciary Committee.

    That would be good news to me, but haven't they been somewhat successful in doing a major smear job (their speciality) thus far concerning Conyers?

    I found watching Ken Mehlman very distressful and don't think I will watch those things anymore. It's hard for me to grasp that people would brazenly lie and spin and act so amorally when so much is at stake, including people's lives.

    I certainly hope hypatia is right
    and the universe will enfold as it should.

    Professor Boland, I would like to read the piece on FrontPageMag which slanders Paul Craig Roberts but cannot find that. Could you help? Thx.


    Oh no. Paul Begala is saying Rumsfeld should be replaced with Joe Lieberman. I guess that cinches it. Begala is a neocon. Makes you wonder about Bill Clinton too, doesn't it?

    This is one big, big mess. I never in my life faced anything like this. It's overwhelming.

    But I'm not giving up. Just venting....

    ReplyDelete
  73. Most excellent news and looking forward to reading this one.

    :-D

    (And maybe my *suggestion* won't be seen as so off-the-mark as you get invited to do the "book talk" tour of the Current Info shows - Like Stewart, Colbert and Maher!!)

    Good Luck (but Not Good Night!)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Anonymous6:58 PM

    james, sorry but I haven't mastered how to post links yet, and anyway most people don't go to links, do they?

    I post important articles by PCR because he is the person who appears to me to be most in sync with the bipartisan patriotism that to me is at the core of Glenn's writings. Glenn is young, but PCR isn't, and having been inside the government on a high level, he adds that historical political perspective which to me, at least, is very compelling, since I never knew all those things.

    But I am sorry I offended by doing so, and won't do it again.

    I might also have chosen a cover photo of the actual script of the Constitution, highlighting its We, the People phrase with a quill pen, instead of the much more recent Statue of Liberty, which seems more symbolic than substantive.

    I think this is a good observation, since it really is the Constitution and our system of government which are under attack now. The Statue of Liberty could disappear and be replaced, but if we lose the Constitution, we lose everything.

    PS. James, did you know before PCR wrote it that this is the first administration in which no internal debate is allowed?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous7:04 PM

    What're the kids saying these days, "w00t!" or something?

    Congrats anyway, and keep it up Glenn.

    ReplyDelete
  76. anonymous @ 6:39 pm: Did you read Kevin Phillips' book or the review of it yesterday in the NYTimes? A putsch by evangelical Xtians is quite possible. Missouri passed a resolution the other day making Xtianity the religion of note in that state.

    BTW Did you notice how Bush laughed off the entire question asked of him today about that very issue, ie, is he a Xtian dispensationalist (someone who believes that we are in the end-times prophesied by the book of Revelation and popularized in the Left Behind series).

    He seemed really uncomfortable answering that question--unfortunately, the audience let him off the hook since they bought into his clown act.

    ReplyDelete
  77. James:

    Blogwhoring here, but I saw your mention of TIA and I wrote a little bit about that. I had some fun with it, which is about all I can do really. If your interested here is my link

    ReplyDelete
  78. Glenn:

    Certainly you will witheringly deal with our vacuous media. A more in depth woodshed edition should be out subsequently entitled Vol I (a).

    Maybe you could drag them kicking and screaming to do their jobs. Then we could have lots and lots of Glenns.

    You could return to blogging and practicing law where your motto would be:

    "Presumption of innocence begins upon receipt of retainer."

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous7:23 PM

    james, sorry but I haven't mastered how to post links yet, and anyway most people don't go to links, do they?

    I post important articles by PCR because he is the person who appears to me to be most in sync with the bipartisan patriotism that to me is at the core of Glenn's writings. Glenn is young, but PCR isn't, and having been inside the government on a high level, he adds that historical political perspective which to me, at least, is very compelling, since I never knew all those things.

    But I am sorry I offended by doing so, and won't do it again.

    I might also have chosen a cover photo of the actual script of the Constitution, highlighting its We, the People phrase with a quill pen, instead of the much more recent Statue of Liberty, which seems more symbolic than substantive.

    I think this is a good observation, since it really is the Constitution and our system of government which are under attack now. The Statue of Liberty could disappear and be replaced, but if we lose the Constitution, we lose everything.

    PS. James, did you know before PCR wrote it that this is the first administration in which no internal debate is allowed?

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anonymous7:32 PM

    Still waiting for Glenn to answer my legitimate questions about who is funding his little indy book publication. Doesn't Gleng think the public has a right to know if Saudi Oil Money or Moveon.org or the DNC or foreigners like Soros or others are funding his book?

    What is there to hide Glenn?

    Says the "Dog"

    ReplyDelete
  81. Good luck with the book. I will definitely pick it up.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous7:42 PM

    Is it okay to paste something from Sen. Feingold? I just got this in my email. Sounds interesting and I would welcome input about it. As I am not a Democrat, I wouldn't want to vote for any Democrats unless I felt they were people whose values mirrored those of Russ Feingold. I don't know anything about these people. Is it safe to assume if Russ Feingold recommends them, they would fight to preserve the Constitution and our systems of checks and balances?

    I'm proud to announce that today is the beginning of our second "Pick a Progressive Patriot" event. From the hundreds of candidates you've suggested, I've chosen several great Congressional challengers. Now it's up to you to decide who we should support. Please vote for your favorite candidate, and whoever gets the most votes will receive a $5,000 contribution from the Progressive Patriots Fund.

    Vote Now!

    It wasn't easy choosing just these candidates. You nominated some outstanding people from all fifty states. But these candidates are all running in tough races against incumbent Republicans who have been voting against the best interests of our country for years. As we've seen in recent months, without Democratic control of Congress, we will have a hard time holding this President accountable for his actions, so I need you to help me identify the best candidates to support in our effort to take back the House.

    Vote Now!

    If you're not familiar with the candidates in our "Pick a Progressive Patriot" event, you can learn a little more about them by visiting our website. They're all fantastic candidates who I'd be proud to support. With the crucial end-of-quarter deadline approaching, please help me choose who to support next.

    Sincerely,



    Russ Feingold
    United States Senator
    Honorary Chair, Progressive Patriots Fund


    Do any of the regulars I have come to respect and trust on this site have any suggestions which of these candidates would be best to vote for?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous7:55 PM

    Dear Dog--

    Jennifer Nix here. I am behind the publishing of this book, and you will read a detailed account here tomorrow, because Glenn is busy at work on his book and hasn't had time yet to post it. I can assure you, sir, that Saudi Oil money is not supporting this book. Neither is MoveOn, though I would think it a fine idea for MoveOn to fund books. Do you have a problem with progressives printing and distributing ideas? You must know of Regnery Publishing, the longtime conservative publisher.

    Anyway, Glenn's book is actually a project being funded by Working Assets, the telecommunications company. More tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous7:59 PM

    The NPR show on Feingold's censure resolution can be heard here:

    http://www.moretothepoint.com/

    Glenn kicked Ramesh Ponnuru's ass up and down. John Dean was also a guest and was great. Matt Yglesias was a whiny nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  85. EWO,

    I'd vote for whoever is opposing DeWine in Ohio, if he's one of the options.

    Or Paul Hackett. Ooh... maybe they're the same person.

    *drool*

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  86. Anonymous8:07 PM

    Well there be a "graphic novel" verions?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous8:39 PM

    Kevin Phillips' new book "American Theocracy" sounds really interesting. And really frightening.

    Bush was asked today by a questioner whether he thinks what is happening the Middle East is a sign that the appocalypse is coming.

    Instead of answering yes or no, he said "I haven't really thought of it that way" or something like that in a kind of way that suggested he didn't disagree. You have to watch the video to see for yourselves how you evaluate his answer.

    ReplyDelete
  88. elise, thanks for the link. And I agree with your analysis. I find Ponnuru more listenable than most conservative pundits, but the "bring it on" line is laughable. Ponnuru wants to bring it on so bad he can't even address Glenn's simplest point.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Anonymous9:08 PM

    Jennifer Nix: Thank you for the discussion of who isn't funding Glenn's book, but very few here take "The Dog" seriously, and I urge you not to worry about him. I'm not a "progressive," but it is more than obvious to me why a progressive publisher is going to be more interested in Glenn's thesis than would be a conservative one that holds allegiance to the Bush GOP. As a libertarian, it is usual for me to side with progressives on civil liberties issues; they are better than most on the right, with certain exceptions such as Bob Barr.

    Dog is a a Bush-worshipping troll. I suppose debunking him for the sake of lurkers holds some merit, but really, ignoring him is usually the best policy, in my strong opinion.

    Thank you for giving Glenn this book deal, and I look forward to reading his work.

    ReplyDelete
  90. That's great, Glenn. We need so many voices, and I feel yours does much good. Congratulations. I know how good you feel right now.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Jennix,
    Thanx for addressing Dawg's concerns. We have primarily two trolls on this site--the other one is Brat-er-Bart. Glenn does address Bush apologists, however, not from a political position. Glenn's loyalty, at least from what I've noticed, is to the law.

    He gives no quarter to those who defend this administrations overreaching policies and calls them out directly with pointed legal arguments.

    Liberals such as me cheer him on, and those blinded by the right dismiss his arguments as those of a political hack. Your willingness to publish his arguments lend credence to his position. This most definately will be a live wire issue so be prepared for the dawgs and brats of the world. But bad breath is better than no breath at all, right? As long as they spell the name correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Dear Glenn - Not exactly on point BUT - with one click or your mouse...

    Time to HELP by voting for the candidates from the Progressive Patriots - and John Laesch get funds to oppose ole Denny.

    I posted this on my blog and visit and HELP by voting. (Or choose a candidate selection that may be in your area!)

    (Thanks - *smile*)

    ReplyDelete
  93. My deepest disappointment in this whole mess truly lies with the mainstream media. I never had a very high opinion of republicans, so I am not surprised or disappointed with them.

    And the Democrats, well they just acted like democrats, trying to ride herd over 9 point plans for thirty seven groups, none of which they could legislate as a minority party.

    It's hard to accuse me of blaming the messanger when I never really got the message. If it wasn't for Glenn's blog and other blogs, and my proactive search for information, I would be blissfully ignorant of shake-n-bake Iraq intel, NSA, TIA, censure et al.

    I think they pay those newsreaders an awful lot of money not to tell us anything. Anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anonymous10:02 PM

    Remember, our president receives 'guidance' from Pat Robertson.

    Please post a reference to back up this assertion. The president does not receive any "guidance" from Pat Robertson.

    There is genuine fear when individuals in power declare they answer to a higher power.

    Every president in the history of the United States has declared, at one time or another, that they answer to God. Clinton did so regularly, and Lincoln did it in almost every public address. Are you suggesting that these declarations produced "fear" in the heart of Americans?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Anonymous10:04 PM

    If Doofus gives a speech on public grounds and charges his trip on Air Force One to the taxpayers, how is the hell can they legally prevent ANYONE from coming in to heckle, applaud, wear any damn t-shirt they want and so on and on. Where are our Dem and Free Speech lawyers on this one? And our once-great and glorious free media? Why doesn't this create more of a fuss; it's symbolical of the entire subversion of our 4th amendment rights - and probably a lot more.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anonymous10:19 PM

    Good luck with your book, Glenn.
    You are a credit to blogdom.

    One small suggestion:

    Don't just get a conservative to write the forward. Pack the jacket of that sucker with blurbs from pissed off righties.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anonymous10:29 PM

    I heard the show today and it went the way it usually does. Glenn was cogent and clear. His main opponent, whose name I couldn't pronounce either, basically sputtered out the same 'every time Democrats stand up to us they only hurt themselves' GOP meme over and over again. The moderator did the same thing they always do, ignored the central issue and made the whole thing into campaign strategy.

    The answer to the GOP meme is clear. Any issue on which Democrats appear cowardly and confused and play to the stereotype that they won't take a stand on anything will work in Republicans favor. Any issue which the GOP is able to frame in their terms (e.g. should the president be able to protect us vs. should the president be above the law) will also work to their advantage. Even those who are convinced listening to Rush Limbaugh and believing everything he tells them makes them informed critical thinkers, despite it being intended to manipulate their basic emotions and prevent them from thinking, realizes that the GOP has gained power by a ruthless and relentless campaign of partisan attacks while openly embracing every hate group in America. If the Democrats are unwilling to defend themselves against such a dangerous and unprincipled enemy at home who is obviously out to destroy them and has been doing so successfully, then why would anyone believe they are able or strong enough to defend the country from threats from outside? If the Democrats were a party of Fiengolds, Murthas and even Gores, the Republicans would be swept from power. As long as they are a party of Liebermans, Polosis and Clintons, the GOP hold on power is secure and they can just keep on laughing.

    One point that should be made clear about this issue is that as opposed to the way Clinton was impeached, after years of tremendous effort to find something, anything to hold him accountable yielded only lying about something not related to governing and not even a crime itself, the law Bush violated, lied about, and finally declared himself above was one passed specifically to curb and prevent abuse of executive power during time of peace or conflict. It was passed due to past abuses of such power by administrations of both parties. While the case for impeachment of Clinton was an extreme stretch, the Bush's lawbreaking couldn't be more clearly the type of behavior impeachment was meant to remedy. A law was enacted and signed into force to prevent abuse of executive power. The president said f*** you, I do what I want. In no way is objecting to that extreme. What is extremely troubling is that one party has put it's desire for power above all else to the point they are willing to excuse that, and the opposition is not opposing.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anonymous10:37 PM

    Oilfieldguy,

    FWIW, I feel your pain on the MSM -- although I have learned a lot from some of the analyses of "what went wrong" that appeared after the war in both the New York Times and the LA Times. And I think the reporting that appeared in The New Yorker during and after the war has been outstanding.

    Sorry to go off-topic for a sec but since there is such an informed community here, I was wondering if someone could point me to a site that provides information on the pros (if any) and cons of this new missile defense system that the Republicans seem to be so high on. My congressman appears to think it is just a jim dandy idea.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Jennifer: thanks for the note about Working Assets in response to dumb dog. That's even better news about WALD, I have used them as my long distance carrier forever and they have always been terrific. Teamwork is always so much more satisfying, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anonymous10:58 PM

    eyes wide open said...
    "But I am sorry I offended by doing so, and won't do it again."

    No no no, you misinterpreted me. Sorry if it seemed that way, I have no problem with those articles. Like Michael Birk said, it's just an information overload, y'know? Really extends the page length sometimes.

    You may be right about nobody clicking links, but that's their perogative, no? If you post a link in an interesting enough context, or provide quotes that explain the relevance or interest, then the problem is solved and people will click.

    "I think this is a good observation, since it really is the Constitution and our system of government which are under attack now. The Statue of Liberty could disappear and be replaced, but if we lose the Constitution, we lose everything."

    I strongly disagree on changing the picture. The cover is about appealing to people's immediate senses when they see it, not necessarily to be literally symbolic of the content. The Statue of Liberty seems like a far easier symbol to rally people around and draw eyes to the book, much like the extremely clever title. I see exactly what they are trying for here, sort of using the tactics of the GOP, i.e. rallying people around obvious and immediate patriotic symbols. The Constitution just don't bring 'em in like it used to, I guess.

    "PS. James, did you know before PCR wrote it that this is the first administration in which no internal debate is allowed?"

    I had no idea that info came from him. Something like that could probably just be assumed even if nobody had let the cat out of the bag, though I certainly commend him for his strong insight and knowledge of the subject. It's a sad state of affairs, that's for sure...

    oilfield guy said...
    "Blogwhoring here, but I saw your mention of TIA and I wrote a little bit about that. I had some fun with it, which is about all I can do really. If your interested here is my link"
    Thank you for the link, the article you quoted had some interesting info. I find myself wondering why so few seem to make the connection between this NSA scandal and Poindexter's TIA fascist spying program. The terms on which we are talking about this scandal don't even begin to apply to what many of us fear is the true breadth of it. Well, except the gross breaking of the law part. That still applies.

    "I think they pay those newsreaders an awful lot of money not to tell us anything. Anyone else feel this way, or is it just me?"

    You are definitely not alone. I often wonder about what would happen if I tried my hardest to become a respected journalist, then completely defied what I was told to do and blew the lid on something important. I probably don't want to know.

    anonymous blowhard said...
    "After all, the number of Americans worried about the imminent establishment of a Christian "theocracy" more than they're worred about another al qaeda attack is probably fewer than those who truly believe that last night they were abducted by little green men in flying saucers."

    Why put theocracy in quotes? That's wrong. And anyway, I think you'd be very surprised at both the number of people who fear Christian fascists taking their rights over terrorists, and at the number of people who actually believe they were abducted by little green men. Heh.

    In any case, your point was lost among all of your horseshit, chiefly the false assumption that one person's views are indicative of every potential buyer, especially when those views were regarding the state of affairs in the nation and not even the issue at hand in the book. Is it warm up there?

    cowpunk said...
    "Don't just get a conservative to write the forward. Pack the jacket of that sucker with blurbs from pissed off righties."

    That is a very good idea, if it's feasible.

    OT: I've been lurking at this blog ever since I was linked to it when researching the NSA scandal. It really is one of the best out there, and I'm glad to participate. I don't really post anywhere else at all, but the quality of the conversation here has won me over and brought me out of my internet solitude.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Anonymous11:01 PM

    Does this mean Glenn will
    finally come out of the closet
    as a progressive instead of pretending to be a conservative that has been tarred as a liberal over his NSA position?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Anonymous11:10 PM

    William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (1708–78)
    The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail—its roof may shake—the wind may blow through it—the storm may enter—the rain may enter—but the King of England cannot enter!—all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anonymous11:17 PM

    "tarred as a liberal"?

    Wow.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anonymous11:22 PM

    Hey Pooch (uhm, Dog):

    Glenn's book is financed by the World Ports of Dubai.
    Got a problem with that?

    ReplyDelete
  105. "The Dog" sez:

    Do you have the courage to answer any of these questions, AND to state specifically what you have done and NOT done to research their answers?

    Ummm, first tell us, as we're curious: Are you on the Gallagher/Williams/Rendon/Hill&Knowlton/OSI "Accounts Recievable" spreadsheet for the RNC/maladministration?

    How much do they pay you per disruptive post here?

    After you, my dear Alphonse.....

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  106. I thought you might be interested in the response I received from Senator Salazar (D CO) in response to my email demanding a vote on the Feingold censure resolution.

    Thank you for contacting me regarding Senator Feingold's resolution to censure the President concerning warrantless wiretaps.

    I believe that warrantless spying on Americans is extremely serious. I also believe that Congress must insist on collecting all of the facts about any warrantless spying program and thoroughly accounting for precisely what actions were taken by the Administration before considering other action.

    Censure of an American president has occurred only once in our history, back in the early days of our Republic, when Andrew Jackson was President.

    Thank you again for writing.

    Sincerely,

    Ken Salazar
    United States Senator

    Please do not respond to this email. To send another message please visit my website at http://salazar.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm and fill out the webform for a prompt response. Thank you.

    Another profile in courage...

    ReplyDelete
  107. Anonymous1:06 AM

    Don't hold back. Don't be awed or cowed because it's a book. Don't let simple ambition get in the way. Write as you have always written. You are a true and original voice--that is why you were approached. Say it. Do it.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Ken Salazar's middle name isn't 'Nighthorse' by any chance, is it?

    ReplyDelete
  109. An analysis of why Feingold didn't consult with the Dem insdiers before bringing his censure resolution to the floor of the Senate: Better to ask forgiveness than to beg permission

    ReplyDelete
  110. Anonymous4:01 AM

    james, I wasn't "injured" or put off by your comment. I hadn't realized how annoying it is for people to have the page length extended, so I took your comments as very good advice and will follow those suggestions when I post from now on.

    Also, please sign me up as a card carrying member of your own particular "conspiracy theory." My "take" on things mirrors your own, including "data mining" coming to the rescue in the next staged incident to justify its existence.

    Going further, I think the "missing white woman" is a hoax designed to accomplish various things, no need to elaborate, and an upcoming trial this summer could be exactly what "they" have planned going into the election, to keep those Fox viewers glued to their TVs so they can be force fed Bushco's propanda in between trial coverage.

    Michael Birk, thanks for the helpful hints on posting links.

    Dave, yes, you are certainly right. Anyone who is running against DeWine, the most frightening water carrier of all, is a terrific selection. And John Laesch, per karen's suggestion.

    Cynic, you do the best links. I don't know how you do it, but each one is fabulous! I should sue you. This blog alone isn't bad enough in terms of gobbling up one's time?

    We were cross posting about Bush's recent televised appearances but I have one more comment. I re-watched the bit where Bush was asked about the "end-times" and I noticed that he was completely unable to formulate an answer to that question. He stalled, and missed quite a few beats as if stumped, then looked down at his teleprompter and came up with his answer. He then recovered and said "The answer is....." and punted well, allowing the audience to join him in laughing which let him off the hook.

    Clearly before being supplied with an answer, he didn't want to say yes because he knew that would be jumped on, but he didn't want to say no because he didn't want to turn off the rapture crowd, so he was stuck.

    That moment especially made me wonder if Bush really ever is behind what he says, or if in fact he really is just a well rehearsed puppet who "succeeds" to the extent he does because of his folksy manner. That raises the big question: exactly who is the one responsible for putting all his words in his mouth? Has anything been written about that?

    Jennifer, THANKS! How terrific you are the one who will be handling Glenn's book. If you need an army of unpaid volunteers to make calls to media outlets, etc. requesting that they have Glenn on their shows talking about his book, you know where to find us!

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anonymous4:04 AM

    Ms. Nix,

    Thanks for the response. I'll be looking forward to the more detailed responses you say will come tomorrow.

    In answer to your question, no I have no problem with any group or person spending their money to support the publishing of any book. I think that information is relevant however in understanding the context of the scholarship contained in any book. Especially books which take one side of and a strong advocacy for any important political issue.

    Says the "Dog"

    ReplyDelete
  112. Anonymous6:53 AM

    "the dog" said:

    "In answer to your question, no I have no problem with any group or person spending their money to support the publishing of any book. I think that information is relevant however in understanding the context of the scholarship contained in any book. Especially books which take one side of and a strong advocacy for any important political issue."

    I take it then that you would be for full disclosure when the defense dept. pays to place stories in the Iraqi media, and when the government pays to place media on radio, television, and in print in the U.S.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Anonymous8:33 AM

    McClellan said Bush did meet with Robertson in Nashville before the invasion, as Robertson recounted. CNN 10/19/2004

    The very article you cite disputes the silly claim that the president receives "guidance" from Pat Robertson. The president meets with thousands of individuals every year. If you want to claim he receives "guidance" from each one of them than the meaning of the word "guidance" disappears entirely.

    In any case, the point is that this country isn't close to descending into some species of a Christian "theocracy," a form of government that exists in exactly one nation-state on earth, the Vatican.

    If you're truly concerned about theocratic states, I'd suggest you focus your limited attention span on nations such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Somalia, ghastly places where abortion rights, "gay rights," and other liberal hobby horses are not only non-existant, but actually fatal for those who advocate their adoption.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Anonymous9:28 AM

    As anonymous (whichever one this one is) notes, that particular article doesn't really establish the President receives 'guidance' from Robertson. It *does* show the former was living in a fantasy land even then and Robertson was in the paradoxical position of the voice of reason; obviously he's been making up for lost time in the proverbial 'nutcase race'.

    Myself, I don't doubt the President 'consults' with Robertson and his brood for 'guidance' (ie the latest hot topic talking points); I also don't doubt the President is smart enough to know he can't admit to this, especially given Robertson's recent statements, and so makes sure the elderly gent always enters and exits through the back door.

    As to the rather inane point that people should fear 'terrorism' more than the now-empowered Christian Reconstructionists and their agenda, I would advise the commentator to look into the agenda they advocate (provided they have the stomach for it) and then try to envision living in the kind of country that would exist under them.

    If, however, that is simply too much work, just envision living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, but switch the iconography to Southern Baptist Christian rather than Whabbist Islam.

    The vague threat of 'terrorism' kinda pales in comparison, wouldn't you agree?

    ReplyDelete
  115. Anonymous9:45 AM

    Glenn,

    I look forward to the book. I don't have time this morning to read all of the comments, so I don't know if this suggestion has been made. George Lakoff made a DVD companion to his book, "Don't Think of an Elephant." Using the DVD at meetings brought his message to many more people than the little book did. I'd like to suggest that you do the same. Thank you for considering this.

    KathyP from Michigan

    ReplyDelete
  116. Anonymous9:46 AM

    If, however, that is simply too much work, just envision living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, but switch the iconography to Southern Baptist Christian rather than Whabbist (sic) Islam.

    While you're straining your imagination constructing such bizarre phantasms as a "Christian Taliban" coming to power in the United States, serious people are worried about real threats to our nation and culture, threats such as those we saw carried out on September 11, 2001. The real threat to this nation comes from Islamic fascism in all its various forms, not from a small band of Christian eccentrics living peacefully among us in suburbia.

    The fact that you characterize such acts as "vague," while at the same time waving your red flag about a (non-existant) "Christian Taliban," is emblematic of a childish and pathetically uninformed point-of-view, and one that is fortunately held by only a tiny and irrelevant leftist fringe.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Anonymous9:57 AM

    Mrs. Lupin's new book, OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on both Amazon US and Amazon.co.uk.

    It can also be ordered direct from the publisher, link

    Briefly, the book tells of our decision to leave Los Angeles after the "reelection" of you-know-who and diaries our relocation to the South of France during the ensuing 12 months. It's illustrated with 100 b&w photos. It's a cross between A YEAR IN PROVENCE and DAILY KOS.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anonymous10:17 AM

    Anonymous said:

    "In any case, the point is that this country isn't close to descending into some species of a Christian "theocracy," a form of government that exists in exactly one nation-state on earth, the Vatican."

    GEORGE W. BUSH THE WHITE HOUSE

    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet America's social and community needs, it is hereby ordered as follows:

    Section 1. Establishment of Centers for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the Departments of Commerce and Veterans Affairs and the Small Business Administration.

    (a) The Secretaries of Commerce and Veterans Affairs and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration shall each establish within their respective agencies a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Center).

    Just as one small example of the direction George W. Bush is taking us.

    A more than obvious violation of the separation of church and state implemented by executive order.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Anonymous10:23 AM

    The real threat to this nation comes from Islamic fascism in all its various forms, not from a small band of Christian eccentrics living peacefully among us in suburbia.

    Methinks you doth protest too much. After all, although we do not have Islamic facists writing laws or enforcing them here in America, we certainly have 'Christian eccentrics' who are in the highest levels of government in all three branches, and thus able to be MUCH more of a threat to us than terrorists in a cave.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Anonymous10:28 AM

    To anonymous:

    Have I stated anything of the sort that we shouldn't be worried about Islamic fanatics wishing our country harm? I believe I was simply pointing out that those of us who follow such things, the agenda and potential actions of Christian fanatics is a far more immediate and likely danger than some potential 'sleeper cell' of Al Qaeda planning a bombing next door.

    Lest I be accused now of 'demeaning' Christianity or being 'soft' on terrorism, let me point out I live in New York City and, but for a quirk in timing, would have been in the Twin Towers the morning of 9/11 when those two planes hit. I am well aware of the dangers of terrorism, having studied it closely since April 19, 1995 (I need not explain the importance of that date, do I?), and am equally well aware that no religion has the market share on outright fanaticism.

    As to the assertion that Christian Reconstructionism is confined to a 'collection of peaceful suburban eccentrics', need I refer to the various waves of abortion clinic bombings and the persistent threat to OB-GYNs by those same 'eccentrics'? Never mind the continued lunacy espoused by Falwell, Robertson, Kennedy, Bauer, and their ilk? These are not fringe voices, but the very public leaders of the Christian Right.

    Do they stand a chance of coming to full power (by election or otherwise) and able to reshape the country to their liking? Six years ago I would have said 'unlikely', but then I would have thought much of what we've seen the last five years as 'unlikely' as well.

    But then again, "It Can't Happen Here", can it? I'm sure the good citizens of Germany were thinking the same thing prior to the 1933 elections.

    My point is simply this: yes, we should be worried about terrorism. But we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking the only threats to our nation and society come from without.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "How Would A Patriot Act: Defending American Values From A President Run Amok"

    Minor suggestion/comment, Glenn: While entirely accurate, the sub-title is just a tad provocative, and you might think about how to get people sitting on the fence to pick the book up. Maybe "Defending American American Values From Executive Encroachment" or "Traditional American Values Versus [or "And"] the 'Unitary Executive'"

    What do others think?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  122. Anonymous10:39 AM

    Look, I'm sure Glenn appreciates the enthusiasm for the book. But can we cool it on suggestions for the title? Let's keep in mind its *his* book, so he can title it whatever or however he bloody wants.

    Personally I think its fine as is; clever enough to maybe even net some readers who might otherwise just pick up the latest clip job from Regency and hopefully challenging enough to get them thinking.

    What about a discussion of the underlying arguments? Can we focus on that for a bit?

    ReplyDelete
  123. gris lobo: I take it then that you would be for full disclosure when the defense dept. pays to place stories in the Iraqi media, and when the government pays to place media on radio, television, and in print in the U.S.

    This point needs to be documented. I believe and have read stories about it but I have lost several of those links. If true, it violated US law, which says that the govt. cannot propagandize its own citizens. As I have mentioned before, I'd be willing to contribute some time and money (paltry as that is) to a suit brought by citizens to confront the govt on this issue. But I am not a lawyer... just a "vision" guy!

    ReplyDelete
  124. Anonymous11:02 AM

    the cynic librarian said...

    "This point needs to be documented. I believe and have read stories about it but I have lost several of those links. If true, it violated US law, which says that the govt. cannot propagandize its own citizens."

    It is well documented. I don't have the time to go look up the links right now but you might try googling the subject.

    One right wing radio host was dinged for taking government money to broadcast government provided material here in the states. Material that was not identified as being government provided.

    As for Iraq, the government hired a pr firm to translate articles favoraable to the U.S. into the Iraqi language. I believe the firm was also involved in writing some articles themselves which were then placed in Iraqi newspapers, sometimes by paying the editors to run them.

    ReplyDelete
  125. anonymous:

    While you're straining your imagination constructing such bizarre phantasms as a "Christian Taliban" coming to power in the United States, serious people are worried about real threats to our nation and culture, threats such as those we saw carried out on September 11, 2001.

    While you're pissing your pants about Terra-ists blowing up all our monuments to Motherhood and Apple Pie (or maybe just a few 30 foot fiberglass'n'plastic 'Big Boy' statues), can we bring you back to reality for long enough to appreciate that terrorists (the few that are in fact around) do these terrorist type things in part precisely because they see no hope of 'victory' by more conventional means (such as elections, courts, or military occupation). One West Bank radical, IIRC, when asked why he blew up bombs, said words to the effect of "give us some Cobra gunships and tanks, and we'll be glad to leave the bombings to you".

    The damage that was done to Weimar Germany and that led to its ultimate destruction was (while arguably provoked and abetted by externalities such as the punitive reparations and restrictions post-WWI) done voluntarily by the German people in the descent towards fascism (note also that Italy went the same way even without the helping shove of WWI sanctions). Hitler would never have taken over without the support and/or acquiescence of the German people (or significant chunks of them). The seeds of German defeat in WWII, while in the end requiring the combined power of other states to finally destroy it, were already sown by the German people themselves (one could argue that the Soviet Union chose a similar way to destroy itself, although not as spectacularly and as quickly). The premier danger now to our nation is that we will "burn the village in order to save it", when in fact, it is in no actual danger from outside (we're the "sole remaining superpower", after all, aren't we?). And this is what is botherign Glenn (and many, many others who actually are thinking about these things) so much....

    Also should be of note to you: On a head-for-head basis (victims per perp), the Oklahoma City bombing was roughly just as deadly as were the 9/11 attacks. But McVeigh wasn't a Muslim, and we didn't go out scouring the Christian charities for suspect radicalism, nor lock up such as Fred Phelps and the folks with their "abortionist hitlist" web page, nor even go after and lock up the various U.S. "militias" (after all, where would Dubya get his core votes?).

    So, please explain, why shouldn't we be more afraid on our homegrown fundies and extremists than we are of a small bunch of folks abroad that don't like us much? Who has really the greatest power to do actual damage to this nation and the way it was constructed by (what I hope are still considered) the wise and prescient Forefathers?

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  126. anonymous:

    But then again, "It Can't Happen Here", can it? I'm sure the good citizens of Germany were thinking the same thing prior to the 1933 elections.

    I understand your point, but in fairness I'd point out that the German people in 1933 didn't have the wisdom of historical experience to go on (nor the benefit of our American heritage of freedoms and individual rights). OTOH, for the American people to ignore both these things and to allow the descent into authoritarianism is ignorant ... and inexcusable ... but still, sadly, a significant possibility. Glenn's doing as much as anyone to try and fight this tendency, as I'm sure you'll agree.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  127. gris lobo: Thanks for jogging my memory on the pay-the-journalist scam. Your other examples of writing Iraqi articles is, of course, allowed since it falls under the category of propagandizing the enemy. Doesn't mean I agree with it...

    It's disseminating propaganda to a US audience that is strictly outlawed. Asa far as google is concerned... I know. I was hoping you'd bookmarked some of them to save me time in having to slog thru google.

    ReplyDelete
  128. yankeependragon:

    Personally I think its fine as is; clever enough to maybe even net some readers who might otherwise just pick up the latest clip job from Regency and hopefully challenging enough to get them thinking.

    "Regnery", I think you mean?

    What about a discussion of the underlying arguments? Can we focus on that for a bit?

    Sorry for using too much blog space, but I said it was a minor suggestion. Of course, Glenn is free to title it as he pleases or as he best sees fit. As for content, yes, please: Discuss!!!

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  129. On the issue of the Xtian jihadis: It was back in the early 90s that Pat Robertson wrote that the religious Right should run "stealth" candidates for office. These candidates would run under the radar, hide their Xtian agenda, and gain access to office. They would then would work for the agenda surreptitiously.

    Another tactic is a bottom-up campaign to take over local offices, especially boards of education. Their success at this can be seen in how well many communities across the land no longer teach evolution.

    There are actually blueprints published about this by religious right planners. I imagine Kevin Phillips' book is as good as any now to substantiate these assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Anonymous11:30 AM

    the cynic librarian said...

    "gris lobo: Thanks for jogging my memory on the pay-the-journalist scam."

    You are of course right about the paid propaganda in foreign news media. Not that I agree with it either but it's there.

    I did find the article about the paid journalist.

    I usually don't post complete articles but this one is from 2005 so I can't link to it.

    Posted 1/7/2005 12:17 AM USA Today

    Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law
    By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
    Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.
    Williams on being paid to boost NCLB: "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."
    AP

    The campaign, part of an effort to promote No Child Left Behind (NCLB), required commentator Armstrong Williams "to regularly comment on NCLB during the course of his broadcasts," and to interview Education Secretary Rod Paige for TV and radio spots that aired during the show in 2004.

    Williams said Thursday he understands that critics could find the arrangement unethical, but "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in."

    The top Democrat on the House Education Committee, Rep. George Miller of California, called the contract "a very questionable use of taxpayers' money" that is "probably illegal." He said he will ask his Republican counterpart to join him in requesting an investigation.

    The contract, detailed in documents obtained by USA TODAY through a Freedom of Information Act request, also shows that the Education Department, through the Ketchum public relations firm, arranged with Williams to use contacts with America's Black Forum, a group of black broadcast journalists, "to encourage the producers to periodically address" NCLB. He persuaded radio and TV personality Steve Harvey to invite Paige onto his show twice. Harvey's manager, Rushion McDonald, confirmed the appearances.

    Williams said he does not recall disclosing the contract to audiences on the air but told colleagues about it when urging them to promote NCLB.

    "I respect Mr. Williams' statement that this is something he believes in," said Bob Steele, a media ethics expert at The Poynter Institute for Media Studies. "But I would suggest that his commitment to that belief is best exercised through his excellent professional work rather than through contractual obligations with outsiders who are, quite clearly, trying to influence content."

    The contract may be illegal "because Congress has prohibited propaganda," or any sort of lobbying for programs funded by the government, said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "And it's propaganda."

    White House spokesman Trent Duffy said he couldn't comment because the White House is not involved in departments' contracts.

    Ketchum referred questions to the Education Department, whose spokesman, John Gibbons, said the contract followed standard government procedures. He said there are no plans to continue with "similar outreach."

    Williams' contract was part of a $1 million deal with Ketchum that produced "video news releases" designed to look like news reports. The Bush administration used similar releases last year to promote its Medicare prescription drug plan, prompting a scolding from the Government Accountability Office, which called them an illegal use of taxpayers' dollars.

    Williams, 45, a former aide to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, is one of the top black conservative voices in the nation. He hosts The Right Side on TV and radio, and writes op-ed pieces for newspapers, including USA TODAY, while running a public relations firm, Graham Williams Group

    ReplyDelete
  131. Anonymous12:08 PM

    “How far-reaching that debate is, though, will depend on how deeply people see that the legal issues you address are the surface phenomena of a much larger problem,” says our cynical librarian. And that’s the key, IMO.

    You, Glenn, argue “Rule of Law” and must convince your reader not only why “Rule of Law” is important but all the consequences of losing it. We know some of the consequences, we suspect some more and we have to subscribe to conspiracy theories to see the worst ones. Some of the conspiracy theories are probably correct, but which?

    Some unsolicited advice: I’d ask you to check in your manuscript how you use the words “competent”, “competence”, “incompetent” and “incompetence”. Cut these out about two thirds of the time! We use that word all too much, and most of the time it is incorrect. The underlings may be incompetent, and they are often put there to assure the resulting “incompetence” according to intent and plan. The top people are neither dumb nor incompetent. Things are going according to their plan. Give them credit for that.

    Beginnings of dictatorship, said Sandra Day O’Connor. Hardly unplanned.

    Yes, let’s get back on track, let’s get back to “Rule of Law”.

    Congrats and good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  132. Anonymous1:40 PM

    Congratulations to Glenn for his book deal. As a conservative I'm delighted when anyone gets a chance to make a buck and advance their career in directions they would like it to go.

    Even left wing propagandists like Glenn deserve their chance at the capitalist pie.

    Says the "Dog"

    ReplyDelete
  133. Anonymous1:49 PM

    While you're pissing your pants about Terra-ists blowing up all our monuments to Motherhood and Apple Pie...

    Why are you (and a few others) so compelled to use scatalogical imagery to empasize your points? You especially, it seems, like to explicitly include some reference to urination or defecation to answer the arguments of your opponents. Do you actually believe such imagery casts more discredit on your critics than it does on yourself?

    Most Americans are more than "concerned" about terrorism. We recognize that there is a real, tangible and dangerous threat to our very existence by very determined and serious men. If you (and your political allies) aren't concerned about this, then you are completely marginalized politically in this country. No one takes you seriously and no one will carry your banner.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Anonymous1:59 PM

    Anonymous -

    You haven't answered the original question or address the original point.

    And incidentially, are these the same 'very determined and serious men' that thought it would be a good idea to let Bin Laden get away and go after Saddam Hussein instead?

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anonymous3:24 PM

    Congratulations Glenn. I hope it is not too hyperbolic to say that you are the new Tom Paine.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Glenn, although I don't often agree with you, I've been pleased to see you taking the time to interact with those of us on the opposite side (not true of most bloggers on the left or right)- you've hit the mother lode here as far as I'm concerned. Congrats...

    ReplyDelete
  137. "anonymous" bravely wrote:

    [Arne]: While you're pissing your pants about Terra-ists blowing up all our monuments to Motherhood and Apple Pie...

    Why are you (and a few others) so compelled to use scatalogical imagery to empasize your points?...

    Ummm, saying you're "pissing your pants" is hardly "scatalogical" (nor is it literality so; do go check your dictionary). It's a common phrase to describe behaviour such as yours.

    .... You especially, it seems, like to explicitly include some reference to urination or defecation to answer the arguments of your opponents....

    I'm afraid you have me mixed up with someone else.

    Curiously enough, I note that you managed to snip and ignore the substance (outside of my pointing out this knee-knocking cowardice of yours) of my post. There was quite a bit more there, including words that might help educate you a bit. You ought not sell yourself so short.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete