Why is Massaoui different, in your estimation? Is it because of his tangential connection to the nebula that is al-Queda? Is it because he's non-white, or Muslim?

Last week, a raid on “suspected terrorists” recovered 130 hand grenades and a launcher, 70 other grenades set up to be fired from a rifle, a machine gun and 2,500 rounds of ammunition. They were reportedly “planning” to kill as many people as possible.

Can you imagine the outrage from right-wingers if these “suspected terrorists” had been proclaimed “enemy combatants” and were told they were not entitled to a trial?

There would be outrage because these men were not Muslims, but Christians and were white men planning to kill brown people. Indeed, one right-wing blogger seemed upset that they were even arrested at all, and others are upset that they haven’t been granted bail.

An expensive time-consuming trial of these men is not an issue.

However, if the tables were turned and they had been Muslims planning to kill white Christians, the right-wing would have no problem with them being proclaimed “enemy combatants” and denied a fair trial.

Why is that?

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/05/domestic-terror-all-around.html

Bush now shows signs of renewed energy and is regaining the initiative on several fronts...Bush has been impressive in recent days....More important, he is demonstrating political smarts that even his critics have to acknowledge..

No that’s not John Hinderaker, but David Broder not long ago. He promised to “revisit” that column in light of Bush’s ever lower poll numbers, but to my knowledge, I’m not sure he has.

When “the Dean” of our “press corp” is this far off, it should be time for our Beltway media to check their assumptions, but they haven’t. They’ve retreated further into their bubble.

If the Beltway Bubble Boys continue to write nonsense like this, and persist in pretending that Bush and this administration is just business as usual, then the public will stop paying attention to what they say, just as they’ve stopped believing anything coming out of the Bush/Rove axis.

The public is so far ahead of Broder it’s embarrassing - they are heading for the lifeboats, while Broder remains sitting in a comfortable deck chair with his Blackberry booking another voyage on the Bush Titanic.

That’s why Mike Gravel (a Korean War Veteran still in touch with reality) thinks that Broder has become an absurd joke.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200705070006

Now we have Joe Klein responding to you. Well, congratulations, but outside Editor & Publisher or Columbia Journalism Review, this exchange has no value. Please let him do his job, and please do yours.

Glenn is doing his job. Joe Klein isn’t. The press isn’t – that’s the point.

Since you’re reading Rich’s book, you might want to review his recent column “The President’s press” in which he wrote:

Take the current dean of the Washington press corps, David Broder, who is leading the charge in ridiculing Harry Reid for saying the obvious — that “this war is lost” (as it is militarily, unless we stay in perpetuity and draft many more troops). In February, Mr. Broder handed down another gem of Beltway conventional wisdom, suggesting that “at the very moment the House of Representatives is repudiating his policy in Iraq, President Bush is poised for a political comeback.”

Rich is now saying pretty much what Glenn has been saying on this topic, and he’s ridiculing “the conventional wisdom” handed down by Broder. That’s not in Editor and Publisher but in the Sunday New York Times.

Please.

Alberto on why Ashcroft’s testimony was not beneficial (it wouldn’t “add to the discussion”) :

"As a general matter, we would not be disclosing internal deliberations, internal recommendations. That's not something we'd do as a general matter, whether or not you're a current member of the administration or a former member of the administration."

The reason it wouldn’t “add” to the discussion is that Ashcroft “would not certify the legality” of the program.

However, if Ashcroft would have signed it, you can bet that Alberto and the administration would be trumpeting these “internal deliberations” at a very high volume.

If you support Bush policies, you can add to the discussion, if you don’t support them, you become irrelevant – it’s that simple.

Either you are a “loyal Bushie” with a total contempt for the rule of law, or you are irrelevant and unable to contribute to the debate.

Pick a side. Are you with Bush and the fight against terrorism? Or are you against Bush, and with the terrorists?

That’s how this argument is being framed; and it’s criminal in more ways than I care to elaborate upon.

We’ve really reached the point where supporting the “rule of law” as this country has always known it has become equivalent of being an ally of Osama Bin Laden.

Yes, it’s that simple.