Kitt wrote:

"The link leads to a story about a Gallup poll taken in 2007 wherein most Americans polled said that we are spending too much on military. That number is growing in spite of Congress, the administration and the very disgraced media we are commenting on in this thread."

That poll in no way refutes my conclusion that "Most Americans" enable the military culture, in spite of their dissatisfaction with the dollars spent.

The reality is as plain as blood on a Palin turkey. If most Americans were really appalled about this government expenditure of lives and treasure here and abroad, they're sending mixed messages.

Glenn has provided ample blogs showing that the very protectors of far-right, hawk profiteers got more than enough help from the left, despite Congressional and, even now, maybe Presidential elections.

The very fact that newly-elected Obama must carefully pay homage to consultants from the higher, military ranks as he meticulously appoints non-ideologues to those defense posts demonstrates the sacredness of that cow.

Americans don't like wasting money like this, but they also like having the military culture available to train and educate their children for careers otherwise unavailable elsewhere.

-- hawkpsd's flair for the non-sequitur, straw man is undaunted by the self-flagellation.

There is nothing independent anymore about the enabling participants in war/military expenditure. That sham of a "free press" that hovers over our republic like a doting hen shades her citizenry chicks lost out before Eisenhower.

Most Americans are so enamored with the spit and polish of militaristic culture they cannot think critically beyond- STFU if you dare question/attack ANYTHING pertaining to the glorious, uniformed branches that deplete this and every country's treasure into insolvency.

Now, every boy/girl child has been so indoctrinated to believe that defense budgets are as innocent as well, every boy/girl child's Barbie Doll. After all, you don't wonder or question why we must kill or destroy if it it makes some rich doing it.

We take a sigh of relief that Brennan is not considered for position of CIA Director or DNI.

Now that that boogeyman is vanquished, we get some unknown, lesser career NSA officer who loves America's new patriotic, surveillance and torture manifestations in all their glory.

In comparison (without much notoriety or track record) he/she sits before senate confirmation as an innocuous innovator of a new intelligence community (same as the old-but sexed up a bit).

"-- mizbinkley" wrote "pragmatic reasons"

Not to be argumentative, just cynical.

You were under the impression that our foreign and domestic policies were ever fortified with "pragmatic reasons"? I do wish it were so.

The 100's of small companies and defense/security industries are very certain they had "pragmatic reasons" for promoting these wars and sucking up all the trillions in revenue from them.

This pragmatism/competency/ideology- the perfect threesome marriage of American Empire. If we're wicked enough to invade and occupy anyone with ulterior motives, it's o.k. Even though we're not even competent or pragmatic in doing it.

We own the confusing ideology behind it and that will keep shifting, morphing and propagandizing so the rest of the resistant nations come around or the hell with 'em.

-signed neobites

We've had the very competent initiatives of Cheney's ideologies: unitary, (unchallengeable) executive, fourth branch executive, CIA, black site, renditions, purposeful unravelling of Habeas Corpus, legislating rights to deprive citizens' rights of freedom from extraordinary surveillance, etc., etc.

If Obama is as ideologically competent with a host of these and other programs, we are done. Well, who knew Bush/Cheney would give us such a gift this Christmas that keeps on giving?

Those on the left (what's left of it after this election) must comfort themselves with what crumbs are spilled from the table of Obama's wonderful appointees selected to govern all the people right of center.

If only Bush had such a great epiphany in 2001, maybe the country would be eating from his magnanimous hand today.

"Lawyers who defend even the worst parties are performing a vital service for our justice system. Holder is no more tainted by his defense of Chiquita than lawyers who defend accused terrorists at Guantanamo are tainted by that."

It's good to be reminded of this, Glenn.

When we think of the close association Gonzales had with GWB back in Texas, his WH Counsel and ultimately AG, we see the corruption of the DOJ that ensued.

When we pondered the cases that lawyers/judges (Alito and Roberts) adjudicated prior to their nominations for SC, we were appropriately concerned.

When you point out Holder's historical comments (from 2002-present)and evolution of positions we are enlightened, but also justifiably concerned.

As you say, Holder is a step in the right direction, but we progressives have been burned too often to feel any sense of relief until we see him confirmed. Morerover, only when he acts like an AG upholding the laws of the USA for everyone are we placated. If he believes his office (ala Gonzales) is to protect the Administration's turf, then we've reinstated the Bush nightmare of justice for the unjustifiable.

This raises the question, then? Are we indeed, after analyzing the past 8 years (not just post this election)a Center-Left or Center-Right nation? Legislatively, we seem to lean toward whatever you define the Republican Party, now, almost consistently (as Glenn well-argues) to the right.

The relevancy of the Democratic Party dwindles into oblivion, day by day. Obama's compromises before the election were troubling. Moreover, the "bipartisan" overtures and cabinet prospects he is considering now are even more bleak.

F-U-C-K! (everybody knows)

Fornication Under (the) Consent of the King

Our King "George" would be proud.

Should have spelled-

vicious (not viscous)stress positions