The British are investigating how they came to be involved in the invasion of Iraq? Isn't that in the past? What good can come of that? What a barbaric, uncivilized country.

Regarding

. . . Commentary Magazine is currently debating the proposition, for Israel, that "flattening Hezbollah villages is probably better than starting a war with Syria" and ultimately concludes that "clearly BOTH tactics should be put into play and mutually support each other."

I teach at an American university here in Qatar, and I have many students from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria, Pakistan, Iraq, etc. If I were to summarize the source of their joy in Obama's election, it would be this: For the first time in their lives, they have a hope that the leader of the nation with the world's strongest military might, just for once, see them as people rather than as targets.

I feel sorry for you, all those hours with no meaningful news. Of course here in Qatar, nearing midnight, we don't have any either: a rebroadcast of something with David Shuster from this morning on MSNBC; BBCWorldNews, pretty much continuous coverage, but US-like nonsense; CNN International, only a bit more watchable than Wolf; and Al Jazeera English, with reports scattered among their normal news items (they have been a bright spot, though--among their "pundits" of late has been The Nation's John Nichols).

At least here, it's night. And with tomorrow a work day, we're off to get some sleep, so we don't have to watch hours of no news. But the alarm's set for 3 am, when the first of the polls close. We'll rejoin you then, counting on you to summarize what has passed for news in those hours.

A last note, though: We voted by absentee ballot Oct 14 at the US Embassy here. When I returned to my classes (I teach at one of the Education City universities), my students asked me who I voted for. I wouldn't tell them, instead gave them a minor, tongue-in-cheek civics lesson about the US secret ballot (somehow, Palin's "right to privacy" didn'y enter my mind). They, each and every one, immediately voiced their fervent wish that we elect Obama. These are students from Qatar, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Turkey, Canada, and the US.

I'm not a journalist or an aid worker, not in the military, just a teacher. I have no illusions that I am in any way a prime target for surveillance.

I see my 80-year-old mother in the US once a year, in the summer, but I call her once a week. Last fall, I had as one of my students a relative of a well-known Arab leader. They both have the same name. I wanted to tell her, thought she'd be interested, but didn't do so until I saw her in person this past summer. Using the student's/Arab leader's name in phone conversation, I feared, or even in an email, might well draw surveillance attention. And though I do nothing wrong or illegal, I also know that that doesn't matter, that I don't have to to become a person of interest--someone in power simply has to think I might to turn my life into a hell.

A small thing, I guess. But I find myself fearing my own government more than I do that of the Arab country in which I live and work.

While filibusters and votes against the bill are well and good, they're still just procedural, and as you say, the first can delay--good. The other can only make a feeble statement. Can't Dodd, Feingold, and others, go further? Can they threaten to mount a challenge against Reid as Senate majority leader if he lets the bill to come up for a vote? Can they hold sit-ins? Switch off the elecricity? Do something drastic to indicate that this isn't just another run-of-the-mill issue, like, say funding endless war. To emphasize in very clear terms that giving a president with a 23% approval rating anything he wants is not only disastrous for the country, but politically disastrous for the "opposition" party as well?

Couldn't it just be that McCain's an old guy, can't remember what he said yesterday, let alone what he thought six months ago?

The employees you cite were clearly unhappy with the companies they were working for - they were free to protest, or quit. There is ZERO obligation for ABC, or NBC, or any company to say "well, Mr./Ms. Employee, you aren't doing the job we want you to do, but that's OK, do whatever you want, we'll keep paying you." If you work at McDonalds, and refuse to sell cheeseburgers, you get fired. If you work for a media company, and refuse to produce the content that the company management wants produced, same thing.

Leaving aside the question of whether what you descibe constitutes in theory an aspect of free press, what it means in practice is that what Glenn just termed the "establishment press" serves as an arm of the government. And that is the antithesis of a free press.

"This is absolutely a free press"?

Tell that to Reporters Without Borders, who in ranked the US 48th out of 169 countries (right behind Nicaragua) in its 2007 Worldwide Press Freedom Index. The index "measures the state of press freedom in the world. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom." (see http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025)

What Glenn has documented here reflects a country whose so-called "free press" has a problem, to put it mildly, despite what you claim, despite what our Constitution promises.

Take off the rose-colored glasses.