"I'm not trying to be Ron Paul's advocate but…"

Fine, don’t be coy, Glenn, why can’t you cite a couple of areas of disagreement with Ron Paul? If you have, I’m sorry, but I’ve missed it.

You’ve stated repeatedly that you don’t agree with anyone on all issues and neither do I. That’s to be expected.

You’re very explicit in where you agree with Ron Paul, but when it comes to areas and issues where you might disagree with him, your normally forceful denunciations just aren’t there.

You’re happy to take on David Neiwert on a very specific point where you disagree with him, but when it comes to Ron Paul, I seem to encounter generic disclaimers and stilted language that obfuscates rather than delineates.

In short, when it comes to the subject of Ron Paul, Glenn Greenwald begins to sound more like a politician than a polemicist, which is rather out of character for him, to say the least.

Dave Neiwert cited numerous bills and issues about Ron Paul’s record in Congress. If Glenn doesn’t want to at least sound like Ron Paul advocate, it wouldn’t be all that hard for him to pick a couple of those stances and say just where and why he disagrees with Ron Paul on this topic.

I don’t blame Glenn for not endorsing any particular candidate. He isn’t shy about saying where he disagrees with other politicians or in criticizing them when they take a position that Glenn disagrees with -- it’d sure be nice if he’d do the same with Ron Paul.

Gen. Wesley Clark:

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.”

Going to war with 7 countries in five years sounds pretty “pro-war” to me. The PNAC didn’t hide their “pro-war” stance at all -- they explicitly talk about building an empire.

We’re now seeing how that “empire” is conflicting with our basic democratic values and decency.

Norman Mailer predicted this four years ago:

“There is a subtext to what the Bushites are doing as they prepare for war in Iraq. My hypothesis is that President George W. Bush and many conservatives have come to the conclusion that the only way they can save America and get if off its present downslope is to become a regime with a greater military presence and drive toward empire. My fear is that Americans might lose their democracy in the process.” ~ Norman Mailer -- February 25, 2003

We are in that process, and this debate demonstrates it all too clearly.

http://tinyurl.com/2x2vz4

http://tinyurl.com/yowyo7

I personally think that they aren't as smart as they think they are, that their vision of the future is more likely to lead to disaster than to permanent security for the U.S., and that the domestic surveillance state which they are in the process of setting up as a secure base for their operations is going to prove impossible for Americans to live in. ~WT

Care to elaborate on that? Why will it be impossible?

We’ll still have “the game” on our giant TVs, we’ll still have the latest “reality shows” to keep us distracted, and there will always be another Britney to “tut tut” about as her career collapses amidst drugs, booze and panty-less behavior. And we’ll all need the latest gadget to keep up with all – which will keep us very busy -- too busy to worry about our government that’s just trying to “protect” us.

Indeed, the next neo-con disaster (Iran) will make a domestic surveillance state all the more likely, not impossible. The more we’re frightened (and the ensuing chaos, oil shortages etc. will scare us) the more likely we’ll opt for a dictator-type leader like Giuliani.

You may be right, but I’m not sure just what you’re envisioning in this “surveillance state.” It may indeed prove impossible for Arab-Americans and Muslims who will be profiled, harassed or even interned, but for “most” Americans, just what will change in their daily lives that will make it intolerable?

Digby has a new post up about the Government official saying in so many words that privacy is a thing of the past, accept it. They are, as Digby said, repealing the 4th amendment in slow motion. And really, it’s not all that “slow” when you think about it. Digby:

“And once again, I'm shocked that a member of the government is just saying this kind of stuff outright in public and nobody seems to give a damn.”

So, WT, what are you seeing that we’ll find “impossible”? I hope you’re right, I’m just not seeing (at this point) a line that can’t be crossed. I just think we’ll wake up one day and ask, “how did we get here?” Heck, I’m already doing that.

http://tinyurl.com/2ohxnn