... when he spoke to future journalists that they would likely forget most of what he said but that they should remember these two words: "governments lie."

Howard Zinn told this story in his "People's History Project" lectures (I found them on cd at the library) and also told stories you rarely hear, such as the way Mark Twain reacted during the U.S. war on the Phillippines. He was attacked for being unpatriotic for speaking out against the war, much like Glenn is critized today, and wrote in response:

“The gospel of the monarchical patriotism is: ‘The King can do no wrong.’ We have adopted it with all its servility, with an unimportant change in the wording: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ We have thrown away the most valuable asset we had—the individual’s right to oppose both flag and country when he believed them to be in the wrong. We have thrown it away; and with it, all that was really respectable about that grotesque and laughable word, Patriotism.”

Thanks for reminding us that patriotic servility is an oxymoron and that truly loving your country means questioning, not trusting, its government. Expect to be continually attacked for daring to speak this truth during wartime, but remember you're in good company.

"I'm sorry, I just don't see any sign of an incentive and disincentive structure which may lead to qualitative changes, thus allowing people like Glenn to be able to relax at any point in the future."

When I first started reading UT I loved the material but wondered what Glenn's incentive was to research and write so well without payment. In short, I "didn't see any (economic)incentive... structure" and wondered if he'd be able to keep up the pace without the payment. Quickly, however, the focus on quality brought readers, book deals, and of course the move here, which, at least hopefully, allow Glenn to focus on the ideas without having to sweat the economics.

I'm also guessing that Glenn won't relax in the future not because he can't afford to but because he's creating, at least incrementally, qualitative changes and (at least hopefully?) developing an incentive structure that will keep him and other bloggers writing and reaching more readers.

... but few news organizations seem to even notice. I found a blogger at the WaPo yesterday that described the Move On ad as "the biggest news of the day." In short, on the 9-11 anniversary when Chuck Hagel is tearing into Petreus, Petreus is admitting he doesn't know if victory (whatever that means) in Iraq will make us safer, when Bin Laden is releasing another tape, the biggest news of the day is an ad that questions whether a general who's previously done the administration's bidding via an editorial on the eve of the election?

Thank you for pointing out this hypocrisy. Here's hoping others notice as well.

... he said, regarding FISA, that the "law needs to be changed... needs to be enhanced,." In other words, we don't torture, we use "enhanced interrogation;" we don't break the law, we "enhance" it retroactively when we need to. Bush was also asked his definition of torture and he answered "that's defined under American law." And if we break it, we can just "enhance" it later.

...you argue the law, and when you don't have either on your side, attack your opponent. When you don't have any way to attack, mischaracterize what he said. The post you highlight is so blatantly desperate that it truly speaks for itself. Only a desperate few (oh wait, that's who we're talking about) will cling to those "arguments" as any refutation of what your post revealed.