The idea of stabilizing Iraq and then leaving, implicit in the way the "surge" was marketed, has never struck me as being honest. Once Iraq is stabilized, why should we leave? The pressure to get out is predicated on the cost, in money and lives, that the current environment requires we pay to stay there; an Iraq that was stabilized despite the U.S. presence would be an Iraq that was pretty cheap to stick around in, thus the pressure to get out would dissipate. No casualties + no front page headlines announcing multiple U.S. deaths from an IED or Iraqi deaths from a car bomb + no battles over funding the occupation = no impetus for the U.S. to get out. The Iraqis themselves have to be smart enough to figure this out, which is why it's unlikely Iraq will somehow "stabilize" while we're there.

I wonder how many people remember the John Birch Society, which advocated, among other things, a nuclear attack on Vietnam. Back then, everyone knew the Birchers were nuts, and one of the reasons Barry Goldwater was crushed so badly in '64 was his association with some of the ideas pushed by that group. Nowadays, the positions of the Birchers of America are much closer to the mainstream of American punditry, even though the views they espouse are no closer to the mainstream of American public opinion now than they were then. BTW, the Birchers are still around, touting stories titled "Global Warming Looks Pretty Good from Here!", and the people who support war with Iran aren't going anywhere, either. We're heading towards something, probably much worse than war with Iran, when an institution as crucial as the media can be this broken, with no way to mend it.

Of course they are upset. Much better to complain when someone else recognizes it, and try to score political points, than to attempt to do something (recognize incompetence) which is beyond one's abilities. Thus, Rummy, Brownie, Gonzales, and so on. Another iteration of the same, seemingly endless, pattern.

You said But what's interesting is that the media's blackout doesn't actually result in poor sales - my first book sold extremely well, and it looks like the second book will do better. Noam Chomsky's book about 9/11 was on the NYT Bestseller List for weeks and sold extremely well.

Conversely, some books that get huge amounts of media attention -- the recent Hillary Clinton books, the book by Mark Halperin and John Harris, the last book about consultants by Joe Klein -- sell quite poorly.

All true, but people like Ann Coulter and so on are given mainstream attention, and lots of it, and their books sell far better than they ought to based on their merits. And the Ann Coulters of the world never shy away from attacking the media, and haven't for years, with their "Liberal media" chants. Liberals who get air time, like Michael Moore -- and he's the only real liberal I can think of who gets media attention -- have to fight for it, and then defend themselves against charges of distortion and playing fast with the truth; conservatives are all over the place and lauded for their "extensive documentation," even when that documentation turns out to be worthless and even made up. There's an imbalance here that needs figuring out.

...I say this as not a method to kiss Glenn's arse, but as a fact:

The reason this book (or any book written by Glenn Greenwald) will be largely ignored by the MSM is simple: It's because Glenn is smarter than them.

With fews exceptions, I find American journalists to be intellectually mediocre.

It's easy to look down on a Coulter or a Limbaugh, because they behave so insanely. But Jonah Goldberg et al, as Greenwald documents in his book, are also given prominence, and most of them behave quite rationally (which is not the same thing as being rational, or saying rational things). Most of the neocons, whatever you think of the policies they espouse, are highly intelligent and academically accomplished people. But the media aren't intimidated or envious of them. There's still more going on, although in the end, I think this is part of it.

Gordon had to write it, and an editor had to sign off on it. Considering it got a front page mention, more than one editor, in all probability. How can anyone not conclude, considering that this sort of thing has been going on for years and no one has learned a thing, that the whole system is busted and staffed by incompetents, top to bottom?

That's what he said on national television, where he is speaking to an audience whose views it ought to be his job to understand and respect -- but he clearly does neither. Now, imagine you are a "reporter" at Time, and your career depends on the judgment and awareness of a Rick Stengel. What kind of stories are you going to suggest? What would be green-lit? How would they be written? Is it any wonder we are where we are? By all rights, things should be worse.