I wonder what the Generalissimo said about "datamining" at his CIA confirmation hearing? Assuming he was sworn ...

Seixon said:

"It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about."

What is the subject of this sentence? Data-mining tools, or driftnet?

Actually, the subject of that sentence is neither driftnet nor data-mining tools, but "it", whose antecedent, "this program", is what Hayden was defining in the negative.

"grabbing conversations that we then sort out by ... data-mining tools or other devices" is Hayden's definition of a "driftnet". (Clearly he didn't literally mean a driftnet, right?)

So, Hayden said, "this program is not grabbing conversations that we then sort out by data-mining tools".

when you describe this right-wing tactic as "stupidity". No doubt the bloggers in question are dim bulbs, but they are bright enough to know one thing about their audience -- they are people who NEVER check sources. So any evasion, any contortion, any outright lie will not be noticed by readers of the right wing. The Noise Machine is engaged in a vastly cynical manipulation - they count on the laziness of their followers in order to maintain their positions of "leadership".

A year, a month, a week from now, when some right wing follower hears about this controversy, the mental circuits will click into place. "Oh, I read on Dull Patriot [or wherever] that Greenwald basically made the whole thing up." No thought will be required to "refute" the argument that Col Boylan is a partisan hack, because "trusted sources" will have already told him what to think. The sheep will faithfully repeat what he has heard from the shepherd.

Any truth can be cancelled by a competing lie. Giving equal weight to each is "Fair and Balanced".

I have told him it was not my email and have asked them to take it down since it was not mine.

Yeah, it's not Boylan's, but naturally he has an interest in what Glenn does with it.

You said:

If you let people choose whether they want to enlist or not, that self-selection will leave you with the most macho, the most authoritarian, the most temperamentally and politically conservative citizens joining your military.

You're mistaken. I have served, in the all-volunteer force, and the people I served with were a cross-section of America. Perfectly representative? Maybe not. But they were neither more nor less "macho", "authoritarian" or "conservative" than others with whom I have since come in contact in my daily (civilian) life. In fact, the guys and gals I knew were some of the nicest, most sincere, and damn funniest people I've ever known.

If you want an example of this, check out Army of Dude (http://armyofdude.blogspot.com/). Alex's depiction of his fellow soldiers leaves the unmistakable sense that they are great Americans and warm wonderful human beings.

Che,

I'm with you, and I believe Goldberg is a symptom and a non-entity. But I don't believe you have followed the chain of responsibility for the current atmosphere of "uncertainty" all the way back to its source. Granted, in a particular media company, the owners ultimately set policy; the question is, why would they care whether waterboarding (or any other technique) is or is not "torture"? It only makes sense for them to take an interest in the question if they are being pressured to provide cover for the war criminals in the Administration.

So the ultimate source of the obfuscation is no doubt the same small cadre in the Expletive Branch who have brought us this disgraceful policy to begin with. One motivation they might have is obvious -- to avoid having their (past) crimes recognized as such.

Many others have noted that merely raising the question "is waterboarding torture?" would have been unthinkable only a few short years ago. That there is any confusion on the issue now shows that the current attack is not just on the Constitution, but on the mind.

Just to quote a knowledgeable source:

You loony liberals JUST DON"T GET IT!!! Its' a MAJOR SCANDAL ... because IT'S AGAINST THE LAW ...!! Thsi shouldnt be hard to understand even FOR A LIBERALS!!!

Let's see, now who said that? Oh, right, it was ... The Major!!

Who's the law and order conservative here again? And you're a Major what, exactly?

Never mind, I think I already know.

The thread is dying (cold and lifeless?), but if you're still around I wanted to respond to this:

I would submit, Peter B, that there is at this point no difference between the Expletive Branch and the CorpoMediaConglomeration; they function as one and the same.

The difference is that one of them derives its power from the law and backs it with armed force; the other derives its power from the market, that is, from the appeal to your enlightened self-interest.

I do believe in the power of markets to correct the mistakes of individual actors (even when they are titanic corporations), but not if they are held hostage to brute force. I hope we'll have a chance to discuss this in another thread sometime.

for reminding me of that. And, thanks, Glenn for the "highlights reel" of the '90s.

In retrospect, the White House "vandalism" story that broke in the first week of Bush's first term was a near-perfect segue into the new Administration. A lie, some half-truths, a gullible press falling over themselves to both curry favor with and demonstrate their "access" to unnamed sources. If only someone had a thumb-screw.

It was a smear from start to finish, followed by a reality-twisting denial that it had ever been a story.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/briefings/20010522.html#WhiteHouseVandalismReport

You'd have to be seriously unhinged to hate Bush.

'Republicant' - I like it. Emphasizes their penchant for talking nonsense.

In similar spirit, I submit 'Republikoyaanis' - Republicans out of balance. Borrowed, obviously, from 'Koyaanisqatsi'.