NOW, and write to the New York Times reporters, the Diane Rehm show, Newsweek and even the lily livered Tom Gjelten and insist they get the story right. If the intelligence community wants to mourn John Brennan's passing, let them. But let's hold their stenographers to account. Stop ranting here and rant to them. In your own words. Simple actions reap big rewards. Reporters read what you write.

P.S. Did Gjelten not understand, after your spirited conversation with him, the implications of letting this story be mischaracterized? that it gives intelligence officials space to marginalize the act of ACCOUNTABILITY, smearing people (and bloggers...) along the way? I guess by pointing out Brennan's flaws, you brought to light these reporters' failure to do the same.

Or are you unimaginitively fetishizing Christopher Hitchens in your approach to public discourse? (The "nanny nanny boo boo/shock and awe" approach to opinion writing?)

A) You are embarrassingly factually incorrect about commentators not mentioning that the terrorists are Muslim. If you are from Pakistan, Camille, or know diddly squat about it, chances are overwhelming that you are Muslim. If you are a member of Lakshar -i-taiba, chances grow to about 100 percent. Wow, you sure are listening awful hard to that right wing radio stuff, huh?

B) Was it not worth a mention in your column that a significant number of muslims were killed in the mumbai attack by those same terrorists? or is that an afterthought to you? nice how you view human life in such hierarchical terms.

C) In perhaps your most embarrassing and weakest link...jumping from Chabad House to Israel to preemptive strike on Iran. All in one paragraph! And all before you get down and dirty with Dick Cavett!

I know why they hired you. You provoke this much. But beware, Ms. Paglia. It won't last. But maybe you and Christopher Hitchens can drunk together and laugh at everyone who gets outraged by what you say.

Here's to your next provocative column that adds nothing of value to the public discourse. Drink up. I figure that's the only way you can sleep at night.

The fact that we're facing two wars, torture on our books, a rotten, corrupted system and an Obama corporate Democrat makes the following comment trite, untoward, silly and off topic. But it nevertheless must be said. Because politics is nothing if not emotion: I just saw you on Rachel Maddow, Glenn, and I'm a little in love with you now.

Am I the only one?

--Crushing on Glenn

you have sympathy for mr. bush because he dodged a shoe? was treated disrespectfully? suffered a real scare? how big of you to outweigh that sympathy over anything else. over, say, the criminal horrors of this war, that UNLIKE WHAT YOU WROTE, American people hardly know fully about. I don't know if you're living in Salon land where everyone agrees with you, but this has been a sanitized, dehumanized war in America. People don't choose to ignore it...the truth of it can barely, rarely be found.

So save your misguided notions of impolitic behavior. Let someone with an actual moral compass write the next post about this.

P.S. This isn't about the shoe-thrower. Lionized or not, his message about the widows and orphans is news people in this country don't know about. Ever visit southwester Virginia?

I don't agree with the Warren choice, but I'm going to try to defend it and hope that Glenn doesn't slice me up with homicidal verbal hacksaws.

Obama put someone who upholds deeply repellent views views on the stage.

Many people do not know that this man has hateful views. Or, despite evidence, don't believe that those views qualify as hateful. Whether that is logical or not is another story. People might just marginalize some of Warren's views and elevate others. They just know that he's a popular pro-prop 8 saddleback minister who doesn't like abortion. (i'm using ignorant-ass me as a proxy for "many people")

Perhaps the reason he is doing this is to sweeten up a social conservative bloc so that he can get a lot done, politically over the next four years?

Is that the goal? Maybe it helps him get re-elected? Pass healthcare legislation? Or do other stuff, maybe even gay-friendly stuff, like repealing DOMA?

And if that's the goal, then is it acceptable to put a repellent-view holder (to some)/bigot (to others) [note: i recognize he's a bigot, but despite evidence, some people don't feel that way about him, which perhaps obama is aware of]

on stage?

When you rank immoral actions, or cynical moves, does this rank up there to anyone but the most clear-headed, i.e. Glenn etc.? After all PROGRESSIVES are defending this. The proof is in the pudding. Social conservatives like this. Self-entitled progressives will, by and large, put up and shut up, so hasn't Obama taken an action which results, overall, in a win? Isn't he working within a system that is so compromised, so muddled so morally bankrupt that he has to play for it sometimes?

I'm just trying to get to the heart of the thinking behind the Warren pick. I'm not trying to justify it. Maybe the symbolism of Warren means more to people like Glenn who understands what's happening as opposed to most Americans who just don't know what's happening here. They are, after all, the one's who have murdered hundreds of thousands of innocents with their taxdollars over the last 8 years.

I'm pretty sure i"ll get no response because I was thinking this through as I wrote this. I'm trying to see how Obama thinks he could benefit in all this. I know Digby has her views, but I think it's much more short term than that. Or, horrifically, maybe not.