I cliked the link on the book H.G. cited. Publishers Weekly said this:

The experts we trust to provide guidance to our elected officials have failed us, seduced by the lure of cable television fame and popular book sales, argue Halper and Clarke (coauthors of America Alone: The Neoconservatives and the Global Order).... Finding targets on the right and left, the authors excoriate the Heritage Foundation as much as Noam Chomsky for lowering the level of public discourse. Though sometimes overblown (e.g., calling a public intellectual's decision to pen a regular op-ed column for a major daily newspaper a "Faustian arrangement with the media"�), they paint a picture familiar to anyone who follows politics. Ironically, for a work that praises dispassionate, in-depth investigation, this book would have been better as a short essay.

Oh, that nefarious Noam Chomsky! I can never watch cable TV without him leering at me, lowering the level of discourse by droning on and on about how many times we've invaded country X as opposed to country Y, never letting Bill O'Reilly (much less Brent Scowcroft) get a word in edgewise.

I must say, however, as an erstwhile PW reviewer, I did appreciate the last line.

Hume's Ghost:

It's much worse than that if you actually look through the book. They do the same thing to Chalmers Johnson ... portray him as some kind of rogue intellectual because he's been warning that the military-industrial complex and Keynesian military spending is about to collapse the republic and that he should do the country a favor and stick to sober analysis of East Asian affairs.

Over the years I was pretty much a full-time reviewer, I had very few reviews that never ran. My review of Blowback for the Denver Post was one of them. The establishment really can't stand Chalmers Johnson, for the most basic of all reasons: he was/is one of them, and they can't stand a turncoat. Ergo, the stronger his case, the more they hate him.

Of course, the alternate view--that they are the ones betraying the nation--is utterly unthinkable to them. This view is implicit in referring to them as "Versailles," as opposed to America.

Then there's a bit where talking about a debate between Paul Krugman and Bill O'Reilly about Bush's taxes cuts that the public interest isn't served because they aren't experts but instead have informed layperson knowledge of the subject.

This is 100% correct--as an arithmetic average. Krugman is PhD college professor of economics. And Bill O'Reilly is an ignorant propagandist. This averages out to the level of an informed layperson, the same way that the average net worth in a roadside dinner skyrockets into the billions when Bill Gates pops in to take a leak.

On reflection, this book sounds--at best--like yet another example of self-refuting rhetoric: Its simplistic big idea is that foreign policy folks should stop trying to sell the public on simplistic big ideas.

At worst, of course, it's just more whining from the same old clueless foreign policy establishment that didn't have a clue what to do once the Cold War ended and caught them with their pants down.

Kelly Joyner:

You know what really irks me about you, boy? It's that you've got a lot of substance. There's a lot here and you write about a lot of important things here, expose a lot of important stuff.

But you're shrill. You confirm every stereotype that a republican old media tycoon would try to sell about lefty bloggers.

Here's a hint, troll: as soon as you use the word "shrill," you give yourself away. That's a pure rightwing propaganda terms that no one with an independent bone in their body uses, except in jest.

Although I forget all the ins and outs, it started off in times of yore when everyone worshipped the Boy King George, except for one pesky economist who the traitorous NY Times had given a column to. And first the terrible Krugman bellowed that Bush's numbers did not add up, when he promised massive tax cuts, with no chocolate mess!--no, wait, I mean, no massive budget deficits as far as the eye can see.

And then, not content with that, the terrible Krugman began to realize that the Boy King George and his courtiers didn't just lie about budget numbers, they lied about everything. And that is how the terrible Krugman became "shrill."

In days of yore, when blogs were small, not many there were to tell the tale. But Atrios and Brad de Long both noted the benighting of the terrible Krugman with the title of "shrill," as did commentators, as well.

One can see such a comment here, in March, 2003, just before the Glorious War:

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/001234.html

DeLong especially developed a particular interest in noting when others became shrill as well.

Here, for instance, is a Sept. 02, 2003 post about Andrew Sullivan "Sounding a Bit 'Shrill'":

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2003_archives/002109.html

Of course, by the time Andrew Sullivan had migrated to the terrible Krugman side of the spectrum, the terrible Krugman was hardly alone anymore. And indeed, in good time it was felt to be both necessary and good to establish Shrillblog, "The Offical Blog of the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill"--

http://shrillblog.blogspot.com/

which began operations in Sept., 2004. You can scroll to the bottom here, and work your way up from its inaguration:

http://shrillblog.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_archive.html

So, you see, dear troll, you're a bit late to the party.

Sorry if I sound a bit shrill.