The story needs ivestigating for the obvious reasons that Glenn has been writing about, but it also needs investigating because unanswered questions are going to generate suspicion and conspiracy which will undermine people's confidence in democratic government.

Hell, the post I just wrote about this sounds conspiratorial even though that was not my intention.

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2008/08/slam-dunk-case-for-impeachment.html

When it comes to finding out how it came to be that domestic anthrax attacks - mailed to "liberal" figures - which originated from a military lab were used to help sell an invasion of Iraq despite those anthrax letters having nothing to do with Iraq; and when it comes to investigating whether or not the White House attempted to retroactively fabricate evidence linking al Qaeda and Iraq - is it possible that as a nation we might take an interest in such matters that is equal to, at least, that which we take in Britney Spears or the children of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt?

The anthrax letters thing is just disturbing that we still don't know what happened. And this is in relation to an event that hints at the possibility that it wouldn't be all that difficult to generate our own Reichstag fire like event, especially since we've already got a lower threshold for the abrogation of the rule of law than the Weimar Republic did.

Take note: I am not implying any sort of conspiracy, I am merely pointing out what is obvious from the above stories - if such an event as the anthrax attacks (which were taken advantage of to garner public approval for a war with a country that had nothing to do with the anthrax) or the Suskind charge of retroactive intelligence fabrication can occur without the press, Congress, and the public bothering to get to the bottom of it; then it is possible that such events can be utilized towards achieving undemocratic ends.

The "lower threshold ..." bit links to this

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2007/05/president-bush-thinks-of-another-way-to.html

Think Progress now has this up

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/08/05/suskind-ra-detained/

In the acknowledgments of his new book, Pulitzer-Prize winner Ron Suskind writes that his research assistant was “detained by federal agents” and “interrogated” while on a trip to New York related to the book. Politco’s Mike Allen reports:

Suskind writes in the acknowledgments that his research assistant, Greg Jackson, “was sent to New York on a project for the book” in September 2007 and was “detained by federal agents in Manhattan. He was interrogated and his notes were confiscated, violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights.” The author provides no further detail.

Boy, I sure am glad Democrats recently voted to expand the powers of the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." No chance it would be abused, or that someone like Suskind would ever be a target for surveillance.

I'm in a rush so I don't have time to make the point, but recall in Glenn's last post where he made the point about no one minding that much about the raids because no one really sympathizes with the anarchists.

Ok, if anyone has a copy of The Wrecking Crew handy check out the section on the ruling ideology of the South African apartheid regime in the 80's: police brutality and repression justified by reason of subversive "communists" being around every turn.

Then keep that in mind while reading this

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2008/08/will-this-remind-anyone-in-malkin-verse.html

Democrats handicap themselves because they consider criticizing their opponents "going negative." Lies and smears are unethical and wrong, but accurately portraying the negatives of your opponent is an essential component of an effective campaign. Republicans now exist almost completely in a realm of fiction and fantasy, forever tilting at imagined windmills (i.e. "big government liberals"). If Democrats want to win they need to make elections a referendum on reality so that Republicans can't hide the consequences of their actions and the unpopularity of their agenda.

Drew Westen has written an excellent book analyzing the failure of the Democrats to recognize the reality that the personality based, substance free attacks that Republicans routinely engage in, when uncountered, is extremely effective and shaping the public's perceptions of candidates.

If anyone happens to go by a library or a bookstore, flip through the index and look up "Kennedy". Westen uses him as an example of someone who is widely remembered being an optimistic president and what not ... Westen cites some campaign rhetoric from Kennedy that is fiery and about as negative as you can get.

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-partisan-hacks-say-when-they-think.html

That's one of the most revealing incidents in recent memory. On air, Mike Murphy and Peggy Noonan give the usual. Off-air they say how poor a choice Palin is, then back track when they're comments go public.

The person who didn't get much attention from this is Chuck Todd - the person who is supposed to be the objective journalist. He know that his guests aren't giving their honest opinions; he is fully aware that their on air views are little more than propaganda.

If you listen to that clip I give of Noonan, Murphy and Todd off air, notice the tone of it all. They go on air and do a performance, an act ... then cut away and give their real views on the matter as if they're performing some form of political theatre.

I don't know that I'd call them impressive. Their phony populist posturing is impressive, I suppose.

I am opposed to this sort of bail-out for all the same reasons as Mr. Greenwald, and was glad to see House Republicans stall the process, but I'm a bit too cynical to believe that they're doing anything more that posturing. I'm reminded of the fascist or quasi-fascist groups in the 30's which would spout anti-Wall Street rhetoric but in reality would be backed with their money.