I wonder if Mr. Greenwald will find it worthwhile to comment on these matters, given his interest in constitutional issues like protected speech, and its value and role in the open and free society.

Too small to make our own way,

we owe thanks

to our Protectors.

City fathers, founding fathers,

heads of state, heads of tables

slice the flesh, wield the knife.

Thanks we owe

for the instincts of our New Leader

to reach across and pull near

those of his own kind -

tough, smart warriors

of a lying, criminal mind.

For these toxic strangers

we never chose,

too timid to take our leave

we reach across tables

refill the glasses

to numb the minds

consume dead flesh

And Give Thanks.

Hence: "war crimes" were transformed into "policy disputes" between hawkish defenders of the country and shrill, soft-on-terror liberals. "Torture" became "enhanced interrogation techniques which critics call torture." And, most of all, flagrant lawbreaking -- doing X when the law says: "X is a felony" -- became acting "pursuant to robust theories of executive power" or "expansive interpretations of statutes and treaties" or, at worst, "in circumvention of legal frameworks."

* * * * *

All of that is what has created the warped Beltway consensus that Bush officials who broke the law, committed war crimes and other felonies, should be absolutely immunized from the consequences of their crimes. That's because when government officials commit "crimes," they're not actually crimes -- they're mere "policy disputes among people in good faith." Only "incendiary" liberals believe that government officials who break the law should be subject to accusations as shrill and extreme as: "they committed crimes."

- GG

That astute analysis of use of language to cover criminal thinking and behavior opens up a distressing can of worms, doesn’t it? Because if all those lying, war-mongering leaders, dems and republicans, who incited the Folk to mass murder in Iraq, then continued to support that moral debacle, now threatening more killing in Iran and anywhere we might have someone to fear – if their patterns of lying and unjustifiable promotion of killings do represent, as they obviously seem to, criminality, that is, stable and discernable antisocial personality traits – then how to characterize Our New Leader’s calculated alliances, power sharing, cliqueing-up with these criminally-disordered insiders, members of the ruling elite?

In true Orwellian fashion, Salon and the rest of the MSM, as well as many readers here, seem comforted to describe Obama’s fusing with the architects of Iraq and defenders of corporatist/capitalist/Incarceration Nation with terms like “intelligent”, “wisdom” and “pragmatism”. “Centrism” is the new racketeering, “wisdom” the new antisociality. But that could be just me, I could be way off.

For some reality testing on the miracle of small donors versus big buyers, click link at sig. Surely promoting this view was a simple misunderstanding by the campaign, because a Christian man would never mislead anyone, and it does bring tears to my eyes just typing that.

On the other hand, maybe Chomsky (at AlterNet) is on to something?

Who knows? The Truth works in mysterious ways.

What fool could not see

What New Leader has got

Intelligence

He’s Smart, so smart

There can be no doubt

And if there was any

We could reason it out

Like a homework assignment

For a ninth-grade class:

Get online and research some stuff

War on Terror, War on Drugs,

How the common good fares

When free-market thugs

Get the run of the place.

Answer - It’s spawned even more hatred: A+, no duh

Answer - Doesn’t decrease addiction: A+ again

Conclude by assessing how New Leader scores

On whether or not to continue these wars

That backfire.

And rate his appointments to fix all the pain

That comes down on all when greed and vice reign.

That’s easy – with sharp judgment like his

We’ll try it again! With the same guys in charge

His equally intelligent friends,

The masterminds of clusterfuck

Intelligence

Now someone naïve might use terms more rude

To describe New Leader’s apparent IQ:

“Dim bulb”, “slow”, “timid” maybe ”clueless”

How Dare You! Say “Sorry”! This cannot be.

Straight talk must not replace civility!

You simply don’t see how we measure IQ:

By Ivy League diction and nice grammar too

(If logic, reflection and thought were the measures,

we might not be stuck with repeating the failures.)

Smooth diction should prove it but if not for you

We’ll utter the magical sounds to astound:

“Harvard”, “educated”, “intellectual”

and if those powerful symbols don’t prove it

Check out his advanced degree

From a Top American University

Just like the degrees conferred on our other Leaders

American Brain Trust

Leading the way

Leaders conferred with American Intelligence

Who can doubt it?

Time for a change?

Time to Get Smart? That’s a movie har, har.

Entertainment

Max is so silly and gets no respect

Spending his time getting inside the heads

Of the Others

He WANTS TO KNOW what they fear, who they are,

How to approach them, how to relate

Before Old Brain attacks and then it’s too late

Who we are, what we fear

Silly?

bet your life

He’s a wonderful man, handsome, a provider with a mind like a steel trap, and the stories he can tell!

We always deserved it when he beat us.