Glenn Greenwald shows us almost everyday why he is such a terrific reporter. Here he tells us that Mike Allen with Politico in an interview with Hugh Hewitt that O'Hanlon and Pollack of(the surge is working and things are going swimmingly, that the military organized the pairs tour and they even got a chance to interview General Patraeus to boot. Wow, thats independence for you. --ConnieL

I've seen a few people call Glenn a reporter, or journalist. This is wrong. Reporters or journalists dig up information that hasn't been reported before. Glenn does not do this. While he may come up with interesting slants on the already known, that is the extent of of his originality.

Reporters and journalists also need to have relationships with those that can provide new information. That's why it's called "news". It is idiocy to insist that people who rely on the flow of information be adversarial with their sources. The result will be no information at all. Then Glenn would have nothing to talk about.

Speaking of "adversarial", I notice that Democrats seem to be immune to said adversarial inquiry. As always IOKIYAD.

Apparently we are all of us, "journalists".
Generally speaking, "journalist" encompasses at least seven different major functions: reporting, criticism, commentary, interviewing, investigation, research and analysis.

Every person that has posted anything about anything fits this description, rendering it worthless. This guy on the other hand, WAS a journalist in a dimension neither you nor Glenn will ever know.

Outspoken newsman shot dead in Oakland.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/03/OAKSLAY.TMP

Sometimes you people don't know when to keep your mouths shut, like the idiot "Kitt" that thought "news" was an acronym for north, east, west, and south.

The rampant ego exhibited in the previous posts is normal yet based in bias. Have you twits ever considered the possibility that these Dems voted for the bill because they know something you don't?

You people have been wrong about the data mining, Swift Bank program, Plame, and calls between people overseas yet routed through the US. For that matter you've been wrong about the elections and the 16 words.

Doesn't a significant number of Democrats voting for something that the hated Bush wants, signal in your tiny little one-track minds, that something legitimate is transpiring?

This is just another example of how hatred can blind the mind.

Since you seem to be fond of the rhetorical question device, here's one for you. If our Senators are aware of such a compelling indication that an attack is imminent, so imminent that it justifies ramming legislation through the Congress with no debate or deliberation, shouldn't this information be shared with the public, and the population be constructively mobilized to head-off the threat?

Obviously you aren't thinking this through or you wouldn't have asked such a dumb question. First off you are assuming that there is some imminent attack rather than considering this is all about prevention and investigations. Don't do that.

Now let's go through all the reasons informing the public is a really bad idea. Assume a plot involving LA is uncovered. Do you announce to LA it's the target of terrorist attack? The result would be panic, fear, shutting down of commerce, fleeing the city, closing the airport, and eventually martial law. Add in vigilante gangs, looting, and crime, and Katrina would look like a walk in the park. You may know the law, but you don't know human nature.

I'd be interested in hearing why everything crossing the border can be searched without a warrant, (including the body cavities of citizens), but not telephone calls. What makes them so special?

But Glen, I am skeptical of his answer. It is insufficient in my view to simply accept what he says without question or examination, assuming truth and candor. -- casual_observer

Quite so. Well said.

And the totally fly-by-the-seat-of-their-pants behavior over the elimination of habeas corups in the United States is just jaw-droppingly inexcusable. And Dodd was the good guy here on that, comparatively speaking, and all he did was run in at the last minute and say: "Hey, maybe we should filibuster."-- GlennGreenwald

Habeas Corpus has not been eliminated in the US. To say so in such a manner is misleading, a scare tactic, and if I were a Democrat, this kind of irresponsible blanket statement would be a big red flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus#Suspension_in_the_United_States_in_1990s_and_2000s

I'd be interested in hearing why everything crossing the border can be searched without a warrant, (including the body cavities of citizens), but not telephone calls. What makes them so special?

I'd be interested in hearing why everything crossing the border can be searched without a warrant, (including the body cavities of citizens), but not telephone calls. What makes them so special?

No, what will happen if Hillary should win (or any Democrat) is that the Rebuplican contingent will scream and howl about the terrible, terrible excess of authority that the president has, and their obedient servants in the media will help fan the faux outrage.-- Brian Schlosser

Actually we'll contend the election was stolen and that any Democrat in the White House is illegitimate. Needless to say we'll do that for the entire term, and declare any initiatives from said Dem, illegitimate as well.

Hopefully House Democrats will have a gay member that says something inappropriate and another in the Senate that calls someone a name in another language. Then we'll be able to take Congress.

You guys hate one-party rule, right?