If this was Glenn's old blog, most everybody knew me and my views well enough that I could ignore what LWM says about me, and those who climb on his wagon. But here, there are a whole new crop of Salon subscribers who might well believe his bizarre, frequently false or incomplete claims about me and my positions if I don't rebut them. But if I do that, then every single thread (since he brings me or my views up gratuitously in almost every one) devolves into Mona/libertarianism arguments.

My final statement is this: if I'm so awful and in thrall to weird and unacceptable right-wing views, then one might wonder why Glenn asked me to work so closely with him on Tragic Legacy. Read the Acknowledgments; I'm there.

And now, I'm gone -- this is just too stressful at a site I long thought was a homebase.

Additionally, for those in the Washington D.C. area, the Cato Institute is hosting an event for A Tragic Legacy on Tuesday, August 7 at 12:00 noon. I will speak about the book, as will Lee Casey, who, along with his partner David Rifkin, is a seemingly ubiquitous supporter of Bush's radical executive power theories. The details for the event, attendance at which is free, are here.

[sound of crickets chirping, tapping fingers.... waiting...]

So...LWM, and even you WT, is it not obvious that Glenn is willing to accept a platform from the equivalent of the Aryan Nation, Neo-confederacy groups and other fascist outlets? Where is the outrage? And how could Cato -- fascist gaggle of libertarians that it is -- possibly be interested in providing an opportunity to showcase an anti-Bush book?

Where, oh where, are your rebukes?

Where is it written that I must consider Glenn a ruling authority on anything, any more than he would me? Are you pulling rank on me, and someone else's at that? How libertarian of you, if I may so. :-)

What I'm doing is exactly what I stated: pointing out that Glenn has accepted an invitation at a Cato-hosted event, convened to discuss his book heavily criticizing the Bush Administration. People around here - especially LWM -- have been fast and free with the "fascist" and other unsavory epithets against Cato. So, if Cato is fascist, Glenn is willing to accept a fascist platform to promote his book. And a fascist entity is open to showcasing it.

Henceforth, every time some fuckwit claims Cato and/or libertarians are [fill in the blank with inane pejorative], I'm going to link to that book event, as well as Glenn's approving links to their anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war papers. For you see, no sane person would accept that Glenn Greenwald travels with fascists. Thus, LWM and assorted others can appear sane, or insane, depending on how they proceed.

Your "cockroach" and several other comments deeply offended me, precisely because they were from you. LWM frequently goes off on deranged rants about libertarians, and dishonesty depicts info he has on, say Hayek, to supposedly debunk me, when *I* was the source for correcting him and giving him that data in the first place. He is simply insane on the subject. You, however, are usually more peaceable and decent.

Glenn's readership is diverse, and like it or not, it includes libertarians like me, Jim Henley, Radley Balko, many on the Reason staff and others. He's very popular in libertarian precincts that are libertarian instead of claiming that label as a cover for being mindlessly Republican. I submit it is not helpful to demonize a significant (especially online; Ron Paul is running away with YouTube views and $$ contributions in the online world of GOP politics, because 'tarians tend to be technophiles and there are many of us "out here") cohort that wants to drive a stake through the neocon/authoritarian GOP's heart, just as much as you do.

I submit there ought to be a detente on the issue of libertarianism in this comments section.

Pacem in commentas bloggas, then.

If what Glenn says is true, then it amounts to a near certainty that the GOP will nominate a pro-war candidate.

I can't fathom how anyone could doubt this. What is left of the GOP base that will vote in the primaries is pro-war and pro-Bush. Ron Paul serves a very useful purpose, but he is not ever going to come close to winning the nomination. (And there are only very particular circumstances under which I would want him to, notwithstanding that I agree with him on a great deal; his lack of pragmatism concerns me even as I deeply admire him for his principles.)

Ideally, Barack Obama or someone (anyone but Hillary) gets the nomination, they will persuasively renounce the Executive-cum-monarch theories of the Bush Administration and promise to get us out of Iraq, and Paul endorses that Democrat.

And why was it, when the police shot up the Black Panthers, no conservative complained, but when they shot up the Branch Davidians, it was suddenly the end of liberty?

I agree with you about the Elian Gonzales matter, even tho I think storming that home with paramilitary troops to retrieve him was horrible. But the Branch Davidians were not a threat to anyone; just an unpopular religious group and Janet Reno tried to defend that outrage by arguing child abuse was going on inside that compound. Child abuse is not a matter of federal jurisdiction.

There just is no defense for what happened at Waco, WT.

And about the Black Panthers, did not Panthers also kill cops? As well as associates (including at least one of their lawyers -- well, technically she committed suicide after they shot her crucifixion style and left her paralyzed) and members who didn't follow orders? I mean, a lot of those men really were violent felons in the 60s and 70s, and not the more community-oriented peaceful organization they have evolved into.