Johnathan Alter discusses dictatordhip in his book about the first hundred days of Roosevelts presidency. It seems that durring the depression, before the term 'dictatorship' got its truly bad connotations, the idea of installing U.S. 'dictator' was bandied about as a potential way of dealing with the rotton economy and saving the nation.

A lot of posters are pitting Gorden against Hirsh. That's like those who pit Bush against Clinton as if that should shut everybody up. I say if Hirsh is creating the same type of shoddy journalism as Gordon then the onus is on him too; in the same way that I feel if Clinton "did the same thing as Bush back in '98"--then the onus is on Clinton too.

Okay, I shouldn't really have used the word "pitting" in speaking of Hirsh and Gordon. What I meant was "comparing". Some posters are implying that because Hirsh probably does the same thing, Gordon is somehow not as guilty. My point is if they are both fabricating sourses then they are both guilty. Shoddy journalism is shoddy journalism no matter what the political point of view is.

"I know what you are trying to do...

Alright, I see right through your game...You want Hillary elected and so you put up this garbage about senators not knowing what these 2 CIA officers knew...that way Hillary can parade your article and say "Look! we senators were kept in the dark!"

Durbin, Obama, Pelosi , Edwards and a few others didnt need CIA offers to tell them that there were no WMD's in Iraq...they voted their conscience, Hillary voted for politics

-- tommydsz

"I always find that the easiest way to think about complex issues is to simply place myself in the shoes of an individual participant. It helps avoid all the muddiness that results from trying to analyze based on labels such as "corporate masters" or "police state". Just thinking like Joe FBI or NSA agent reveals that laziness is indeed at the core of a lot of evil."

And so what? Now you can live with yourself and your own laziness? I don't get this approach. If massive human laziness ends up inadvertantly causing a police state don't we STILL have a police state? And don't we STILL need to figure a way out to end it. Your assessment is too clever by half. What's your solution--make the government and our "corporate masters" do manditory calistenics?

I read Greenwald's posting on The banality of the surveillance state and THEN watched the Obama video. My reaction was, sorry, this vid IS sad and scary. Why? Because knowing full well that Obama will do--can do-- nothing to reverse the horror of the ever blossoming surveillance state, this video represents to me Fascism with a democratic face.

So Glenn has shown just how sickening the Repulican Bush worship is and how hypocritical 'National Review' is for it's negative comment on the Obama vids. But this doesn't negate the fact that these vids ARE the most sickening propaganda for a corporate candidate who will only looks good as presidential hopeful because Bush looks so, so bad.

Have you read the "Rolling Stone" endorsement of Obama? This is candidate worship spun up into the statosphere. According to them, he's Lincoln and Kennedy all rolled into one handsome package. What we're seeing is the nausiating macho posturing of the Repulicans for Bush being replaced by the equally nausiating shiney-happy-people posturing of the Dems for Obama. But it's ALL a fraud.

I think Greenwald does us a far better service--and truly shines-- sticking to exposing the horror this government and the lap-dog media is imposing on us. Leave the superficial "what hypocrites the repubs are" stuff to the lesser lights or at least put it in a broad enough context to expose the obvious hypocricy of BOTH parties.

I read this posting on The banality of the surveillance state and THEN watched the Obama video. My reaction is, sorry, that vid IS sad and scary. Why? Because knowing full well that Obama will do--can do-- nothing to reverse the horror of the ever blossoming surveillance state, the video represents to me Fascism with a democratic face.

So Glenn has shown just how sickening the Repulican Bush worship is and how hypocritical 'National Review' is for it's negative comment on the Obama vids. But this doesn't negate the fact that these vids ARE the most sickening propaganda for a corporate candidate, weighed down by corporate cash, who will only looks good as presidential hopeful because Bush looks so, so bad.

Have you read the "Rolling Stone" endorsement of Obama? This is candidate worship spun up into the statosphere. According to them, he's Lincoln and Kennedy all rolled into one handsome package. What we're seeing is the nausiating macho posturing of the Repulicans for Bush being replaced by the equally nausiating shiney-happy-people posturing of the Dems for Obama. But it's ALL a fraud.

I think Greenwald does us a far better service--and truly shines-- sticking to exposing the horror this government and the lap-dog media is imposing on us. He should leave the superficial "what hypocrites the repubs are" stuff to the lesser lights or at least put it in a broad enough context to expose the obvious hypocricy of BOTH parties. [this comment is a repeat of one I posted on the "Obama vid" posting. pardon my indulgence.]