We have a right wing in this country whose public commentariat routinely perform a drag show in which

(a) they loudly, screamingly proclaim their own macho-ness, their own imaginary grasp of War and Martial Values, and that only their raving, lunatic yet cowardly xenophobias count as "patriotism", and

(b) they unhingedly slur, libel, and slander any voice which suggested the Iraq War & Occupation was not nor is not a good idea, no matter how many actual (as opposed to fictional) service medals hang on their chest.

These alien beings with glowing fields about their heads which protect them from any understanding of their own hypocrisy actively insult real veterans who have served on the ground in Iraq or in other real wars, who disagree with their vain and cowardly posturing.

War opponents of whatever background are slurred by these prancing cowards as sissies, pussies, and probably gay. Yes, I too have heard your pre-Cro-Magnon representatives calling veterans protesting the war f***ots.

On the other hand, a reservist -- and if you haven't served in the military you must imagine what it's like to an active duty service member getting lectured by a non-active duty reservist -- whose battlefield accomplishments are limited to cheerleading a war in which he isn't serving, and who actually has a background in gay porn movies, gets cleared as a legitimate representative.

Those without the alien field around their heads guarding them from hypocrisy awareness can 'get it'. You can't on the one hand insult real actual brave military veterans who have served and served bravely yet who disagree with your insane policies, calling them traitors and any number of slurs relating to cowardice and homosexuality, while simultaneously cheering as a 'real' authoritative voice on the war a man whose sole accomplishment is to cheerlead rightist policies.

Again, penetrating the alien hypocrisy force field allows us to imagine if Sanchez had happened to be opposed to this war. If, say, he was an associate of Glenn's and Salon sent him over there to blog about the war on the ground.

What would we hear from our modern unhinged right?

Would our modern right express respect for his commitment to cover Iraq on the ground? Hee.

Would our modern right express respect for his status as a military reservist who hasn't served on the ground in Iraq? Hee hee.

Would our modern right respectfully fail to mention said correspondent's background in gay porn due to their appreciation for the struggle of homosexuals to have rights in the Middle East?

HA HA HA HA HAAAAA HEE HEE HO HO HAAA HAAAAHHHHH....

'Oh, but I thought we had the moral right to insult as cowardly homosexual America-haters anyone who disagreed with our crazy and world destabilizing policies! Now you guys are being mean!!! Waaaaaa!

Why is it that those who purport to be the purveyors of centrist, mainstream, non-extremist positions always end up committing their errors in favor of hawkish policies?

Why, for example, do all the examples of supposedly centrist pundits, journalists, and commentators agree that strutting around with aggressive poses toward chiefs of states of presumed enemies is somehow weak or naive?

If there were no structural reasons, or incentives, then we occasionally should see the news & opinion media herd falsely hewing to more dovish policies whereas polls suggest the population was more hawkish.

Yet in one more example, we have the commentariat all lining up to suggest that a continued aggressive posture regarding negotiations with presumed foes is 'sensible'.

Presumably it's soft, dovish, immature, irresponsible to consider negotiating with Iran to avoid a hellish war opening up in yet another region, yet welcoming Uzbek tyrants who boil dissidents into Washington to meet with the Secretary of State, that's mature & sensible & centrist.

If it were only a herd or peer-pressure mentality, the so-called centrist commentariat would on occasion veer more dovish on foreign policy than the population. Instead the US news media system apparently departs journalistic norms only when it serves hawkish foreign policy ends.*

*I keep looking for examples of occasions on which the US media has committed lapses in journalistic standards which resulted in opposition to hawkish foreign policies. I haven't found them, but given that for 30 years we've heard the right allege that the US news media are basically run by the Revolutionary Communist Party as funded by George Soros, I hesitate to ask our modern rightist nut squad.

But let's be clear here. Eavesdropping, wiretapping, listening to conversations is NOT datamining. Hayden makes the distinction clearly no matter how much Glenn wants to not look foolish. We've already had the datamining conversation. Nobody seems to think that linking telephone numbers is illegal.

- Pewter4x4

Hmmm. That attempted snark would suggest that Glenn was mixing up data-mining with wiretapping.

Let's see what Glenn actually said. Oh, Glenn! Were you arguing that Gonzales wasn't cleared because you don't know the difference between data-mining and wiretapping?

This leak would be arguably exculpatory for Gonzales only if it reported that data mining was the only source of the Comey/Ashcroft objections, not merely one of the sources. But both articles explicitly states that there were other grounds for those objections besides data mining, leaving open -- rather than resolving -- the only relevant questions: did those objections, contrary to Gonzales' sworn testimony, relate to the "TSP's" warrantless eavesdropping?

These articles are expressly unable to answer that question, the only one that matters. Therefore, it proves nothing as to whether Gonzales lied when he testified that the Ashcroft/Comey objections had nothing to do with the "TSP." That is just basic, obvious logic.

Gosh. It seems that Glenn didn't mix the two. Otherwise there's no other reason for 4 continuous paragraphs distinguishing the two and how they relate from Bush Jr's little toadie Texas liar, and our Attorney General.