The filthy, fascist, corporatist shills for Evil hosted Glenn Greenwald; Greenwald was polite to them and acknowledged their contributions in criticizing the Bush regime; and yet no one can stand up and say Glenn should be drawn and quartered for giving these vile people his time and attention?

Cato -- as is widely known and proclaimed by some commenters here -- is no better than the Aryan Brotherhood or The John Birch Society. What are you all thinking in delighting in Glenn's appearing at Cato?

/sarcasm

The personal squabbles of a handful of posters here are not as interesting to the rest of us as you might think.

My dear, 'tis no personal squabble. Glenn spoke at the Cato Institute. You know, The Beast. The Anti-Christ. They are libertarians.

I very rarely feel in forums like that that my emotions are out of control, but I actually felt some rage about that question

That creature asking the question is Cato's Roger Pilon. I'm sure he was very unhappy, as he has been with his brethren for some time, that they did yet another anti-Bush stint.

(And before anyone jumps in to scream, I could have kept my knowledge to myself; I happen to know he has been w/ Cato for a very long time, and that he is an outlier there. So I say so.)

When we do it, THAT'S different.

I find this whole discussion adolescent. Glenn is not pretty, not cute, nor "hot." (Except I surmise to his domestic partner.) What he is for relevant purposes is an arresting Presence that commands attention when he speaks, and that is why he ought to be on television, but only in a format where he may speak unedited and uninterrupted.

You always make me chuckle. I hope to never fall-out with you or W.T

Not likely on my end. At first, I admit to finding you...inscrutable. But then your prose grew on me. Not that I always understand you, but when I exert some effort it is usually repaid.

But don't tell me Glenn is a sex god (you have not, you wise soul). That nonsense drives me bonkers and is beside the point of what he does so well; and further, caters to the Ken and Barbie syndrome that has overtaken the televised "news."

if, in 25 years, the general assessment among the public and scholars is that the Iraq war _WAS_ worth it, then your [Glenn's] place in history will be much reduced from what it would be if the Iraq war was NOT deemed to be worth it? Certainly, this is a highly unlikely scenario, but you have to acknowledge that it's the truth, don't you?

That is a "have you stopped beating your wife" question. It assumes he is motivated by concerns for his place in history.

Any one's current criticisms of Bush and his foreign policy stands and falls on the merits. Address the contemporaneous reality if you can. Tens of thousands of American soldiers and civilians dead or maimed, and hundreds of thousand of Iraqis dead or maimed, and millions of them fleeing the country, are what we deal with here and now. Maybe in 100 years Iraq will be a beacon of the Enlightenment. Or not. And so what? Tell that to the people --American and Iraqi-- dying or living now without legs or eyesight.

That's not nice.

I am unscrewable?

Now sweetheart, I did not write that. For all I know, many attest that you are a corkscrew on legs. ;)

The fact is that we all know that Muslims have had a chilling effect on free speech, even here in the States. Someone upthread reminded us all about the cartoons of Mohammend, which almost no newspapers or magazines in the States dared to republish. Why? Answer that one, O Armies of Glenn, rather than asking where the Muslim invasion fleet is.

And you left out Salman Rushdie.

Look, I can't speak for the "Armies of Glenn," but I have blogged in the past that this thuggish intimidation -- sometimes rising to murder -- and basic reliance on terror is a serious problem for free speech in the West. In my view, the Netherlands and other countries need to be more stringent in expecting all immigrants, including Muslims, to assimilate to Enlightenment political values.

But the notion that there are armies of Muslims poised a la Hitler to take over countries, commandeer their governments, and impose Sharia is sheer nonsense. No Caliphate is coming, not anywhere, and certainly not in the United States. They employ terror because that is all they can do! They have no Wehrmacht and Panzer divisions. Let's get real, mmkay?

You need to bridge that gap, becasue "today we don't print offensive cartoons, tomorrow we're a giant caliphate" is not an especially convincing argument.

Well said. And I completely agree with Golden Boy that CNN pixilated those Danish Cartoons so one could not actually see them, that the NYT wouldn't publish them & etc, for one reason: FEAR. After those cartoons become a cause of riots in other parts of the world, they took on news value, but our media almost universally caved to a desire not see their studios/presses blown up.

In that sense, Muslim terror inarguably has had a chilling effect on speech; Piss Christ pissed off Xians, but no one was bombed or murdered. Salman Rushdie wrote a novel that some Muslims purport to find blasphemous, and nearly has his life ruined by having to go into hiding. These are serious issues.

But none of that means a Caliphate is coming, or that Islamist terrorists have any capacity whatever to install one. To believe otherwise is sheer paranoid lunacy.