After being reprimanded for linking to Glenn’s post at Red State, Cnote says:

I wasn't aware that Greenwald's blog was a "hate site." Maybe you refer to Salon as a whole. I'll provide that disclaimer next time.

Did you notice how quickly this Red State poster accepted the designation of Glenn’s blog as a “hate site” and thought that it might even apply to Salon as whole because of it’s generally liberal content?

In this RedState universe, a “liberal” site is, by definition, a “hate” site. That’s quite a bubble they’ve built for themselves.

You see that same bubble in the Newsbusters post about Cafferty’s comments that can be automatically dismissed because they come from a “variety of liberal mainstream media sources, such as the New York Times, Newsweek, NPR, and the Associated Press.”

They don’t even have to refute what’s reported in “liberal media” anymore, the fact that the New York Times reported it is now proof enough that it isn’t true; and the same is of course true of “hate sites” like Salon.

These people think their self-made right-wing media bubble protects them, but it is closing in on them. The more they adopt this “with us or against us” mentality the more isolated they are becoming and the more they have to rely on faith rather than facts.

They can’t provide any evidence that these documents weren’t “lost” and that there is no pattern so they don’t even try. They just cry “conspiracy theory” and “liberal media” and hope this scandal goes away. It’s not going to work.

“…kind of like a compost heap, Wolf, the more stuff you pile on it the bigger the odor emanating from it.”

~ Jack Cafferty after citing Glenn’s post on CNN

What’s that smell?

Blatant disregard for the law.

They don’t even pretend to hide it anymore. The administration no longer cares whether anyone knows about their systemic lawbreaking – it’s what the base wanted, and what Karl wrought. This was the plan; it wasn’t a mistake. They are actually proud of it.

He is the absolute master of his own conduct in the exercise of his office, and may observe or disregard the counsel given to him at his sole discretion.

That sounds like Bush’s recent response to Congress; and those words are written by Alexander Hamilton. However, Hamiliton was referring to the King of England, not the President of the United States.

In the mind of Goldfarb, just what would the limitations of power on the president be to keep him from being a ‘dictator’ and make him instead a ‘near-dictator’ when it comes to national security?

After reading his column, I don’t see any limitations at all as long as the president waves a “national security” flag and insists he’s taking actions as our commander in chief?

He is, in the mind of Goldfarb and those like him, an absolute dictator of foreign policy who can take us into wars and perpetuate wars without any consultation or oversight from Congress whatsoever. He is, therefore, our King of National Security.

Could it be that Fred Hiatt saw the poll that Glenn cited the other day where 72% of the public approved of these investigations and only 21% said they shouldn’t be investigated? Maybe Fred thought it might be better to “lead” the parade than be trampled by it.

One area I don’t think we’ll see Fred Hiatt grapple with reality, however, is in foreign policy – he’s become a hard-core neoconservative and will continue to promote their ideas. I can’t imagine him confronting their crusade against “Islamofascism” or their insistence upon reasserting American power on a global scale.

Hiatt can safely call for investigation on the attorney scandal without being called a “girly man” by those manly-men of neo-conservatism. Oversight might be tolerated in this investigation, but let the subject of foreign policy come up and the light bulb will be immediately turned off.

Since G Reynolds was quoting reader mail anyway, it wasn't his idea.

Oh, but Glenn Reynolds has had plenty of ‘bad ideas’ of his own and has suggested that at some point those Americans who oppose this war might be violently confronted if they are too successful:

The real danger is that we who support the war will reach the point that we say “we might as well be taken as wolves then as sheep”. At that point the left can celebrate that they have made our military and those who support it the people they claim we are. Once that happens however any compunction about respecting them will be gone, and remember one side is armed and one is not. [1]

Reynolds is warning the “anti-war left” that if it keeps criticizing people like him, and continues to criticize our troops for murdering innocent civilians (his example was Haditha) then Reynolds (and those who agree with him) say they will reach the point where they might as well start murdering Americans who oppose the war. And he makes clear: it will be entirely their own fault that he has to murder them.

You have to wonder just “where” that point is that this Professor of Law at UT will unlock his gun case and start killing his fellow citizens. Just where is that line that must not be crossed? What will it take for him to start pulling triggers?

If we withdraw from Iraq will Glenn Reynolds have no choice but to become a mass murderer? Is he serious or is this just bluster? Does he have any “compunction about respecting” the left now? It sure doesn’t sound like it. What’s he waiting for?

[1] http://thismodernworld.com/2930