One of the striking things about this episode was the instamatic lamestream media feeding frenzy, launched literally the same day as the editorial. That wasn't the work of roving reporters; it takes advance coordination to schedule televised interviews with high-profile media stars. And all this excitement was triggered by what, a war-rallying NYT op-ed from a couple of think-tank wonks?

What's exposed here is not simply another military-sponsored propaganda piece, but a widespread conspiracy to fabricate a "news" event out of nothing. In this case, Glenn had the insight to unravel it and identify the key players, and the opportunity to actually interview one of the leading actors in the production.

One of the standard dismissals of conspiracy theories is to speculate on the implausibility of coordinating the hundreds of people needed to pull off the staged event, while insuring they maintain confidentiality about how they participated in it. Presumably, there would be too many potential leaks to keep such a conspiracy concealed.

This production shows how such conspiracies are implemented, by integrating the details into the working routines of the participants in an unremarkable manner. None of the operations staff of the military or news media needed to be briefed on the overarching scheme; they simply had a job to do as usual. And none had to be admonished to maintain silence about their activities, as none of it was outside their job descriptions. All it takes to insure this type of complicity is a regularly scheduled paycheck.

It wasn't even necessary to brief O'Hanlon and Pollack ahead of time on the dimensions of the planned media blitz. They could be counted on to play their roles as serious foreign policy "scholars", flushed with the ego-stroking flattery of being thrust into the national news spotlight. And for the media stars who pimped them, nothing but business as usual, with their pre-digested talking points helpfully prepared by their staff.

One of the things I found notable about Glenn's work on this piece was his efforts to indentify two of the sponsors of this staged media event: the US Dept of Defense and the Saban Center for Middle East Studies. I'd be most interested in learning the identities of the agents on the news media side who helped coordinate the feeding frenzy.

Glenn wrote:

"... it is hard to argue that [Democrats] actually favor [warrantless eavesdropping] as a group generally. They seem to oppose it, but something restrains them from really preventing its enactment. That is why political fear is the most likely explanation (rather than a belief in these programs)."

I think you may be overlooking a more plausible explanation. In the world of business, white collar professionals are rarely subjected to overt intimidation. They are instead paid to say and do the things their corporate supervisors expect of them. There is ample evidence that congressional representatives are generously compensated for the political services they render. If they have anything to fear, it more likely would be termination of a vital source of income.

The Bush cabal's escalating Al Qaeda propaganda has completely muddied the already brakish water. What tangible evidence do we actually have of confirmed Al Qaeda activities? I'm inclined to be highly skeptical of claims made either by anonymous insurgent groups or the US government or military. Al Qaeda has become an all too useful cover story for militants on both sides of this conflict.

Is there really more substance than myth to the Al Qaeda legend? The fact that both Bin Laden and the organization he is claimed to head remain elusive after six years of pursuit is frankly unbelievable. If they actually do still exist, the connections to the Saudi and Pakistani regimes are blatantly obvious. What would stop the CIA from tracking them down with black ops in those countries, other than high-level government protection and the complicity of the US administration?

If Al Qaeda are not in fact a false flag operation or surreptitious allies of the Bush cabal, they are the most cooperative enemies the neo-cons could ever pray to God for.

What did Scooter Libby say after Prez Bush commuted his prison sentence?

Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!!

http://www.correntewire.com/mein_fuhrer_i_can_walk

Persuasion and force are not the only tactics available for activists to influence social and political change. But what it requires is personal sacrifice, and that's a step few modern Americans have been willing to take.

As many have concluded, even massive lawful demonstrations make little impact when the corporate media refuses to publicize them. Taking it a step further, with unlawful disruption of access to public or private facilities, imposes unwilling sacrifices on uninvolved bystanders, which often provokes counter-productive public backlash.

What has worked in the past is systematic civil disobedience, backed up with a commitment to pursue each case through the legal system with a willingness to do real jail time. The most effective acts were targeted specifically at the agents and enforcers of immoral government policies rather than arbitrary symbolic protests. Their purpose was not simply to create publicity, but to actually impede the government's ability to carry out its unlawful acts.

Of course, persuasion played a major role in framing the context of these direct acts of civil disobedience. In my experience, this was must passionately expressed by Mario Savio in 1963:

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part, you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."