Could it be that this article had something to do with Carlson's being "out" at MSNBC? At least that's what I just read in the MSM. If this is true, I do feel a bit sorry for him. One honest slip of the tongue and you're out. No doubt they'll replace him with another hack who will carry on with business as usual.

Glenn, did you hear each congressman's "impressive" debate/speech on the floor? I found this speech particularly impressive and wonder why you didn't mention it. This often maligned republican (for not following the status quo) explains why his peers should vote "no", and why this version doesn't go far enough to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance. Do I think any other repubs think like him? Not a chance. But I wish more democrats did. I think the demos are sill running scared on the subject of "keeping America safe".

March 14, 2008 Speech to Congress:

"....The assurances in this bill that Americans will not have their communications monitored without warrant are unconvincing. The bill merely states that the government should do its best to avoid monitoring Americans if possible. We have seen how meaningless such qualified prohibitions have been as we recount the abuses over the past several years.

Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of “national security letters.” Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.

This is what happens when we begin down the slippery slope of giving up our constitutional rights for the promise of more security. When we come to accept that the government can spy on us without a court order we have come to accept tyranny.

I urge my colleagues to reject this and all legislation that allows Americans to be spied on without a properly issued warrant."

Congressman Ron Paul

I've been active in the 9/11 truth movement in Northern California for a couple of years, and I've never heard of Philip Jayhan. I've never heard of Conspiracy Con either, which, like Jayhan, the author informs us is in Northern California.

And what's the first argument that this Jayhan is supposed to have given the author here? Why, he saw some flashing thing when one of the planes was about to crash. Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Of course, people in the habit of going to something called, and something obscure as, Conspiracy Con are apt to be suspect.

Let's get real for a minute. It took me years, as it did so many others, to catch on to how 9/11 was a false flag operation -- because my first inclination was to assume that those motivated to do this would've had too many obstacles to surmount to undertake and get away with something so audacious.

But careful, duplicable research by many brave and brilliant scholars has shown that there's simply no way the official story can be true, and that, applying Occam's razor, a false flag operation makes far more sense than any alternative explanations so far offered up by anybody.

And these important findings have been systematically excluded from the mainstream media, including Salon. Instead the public only ever hears about what occasional wackos and flakes have to say about 9/11, the better to discredit the search for 9/11 truth.

Another reason for McCain's "mistake" may be lazy thinking or a lack of insight. Both of those scare me as much as his having malice in what he stated. I'm not one to put too much emphasis on where one went to school or class rank, but when one is a bottom-dweller of any institution (McCain graduated 5th from the bottom of the US Naval Academy) it does show laziness of the mind and a lack of effort. McCain’s most likely intelligent enough (don't really know why I think that - perhaps I'm being charitable?), but I believe he has few intellectual interests. Even most of his "writings" are with a co-writer, and we all know pretty much what that means.

McCain's just not that bright, nor does he really care. He gets by on his "personality", and of course his married and family connections.

Glenn writes, "The American media has a script to which they loyally adhere."

Are you suggesting some sort of Project Mockingbird? I wouldn't doubt it since there has to be some reason more than wanting to be cozy with the political elite.

When are more respected writers going to talk explicitly about a Project Mockingbird, or urge a proper and honest investigation into 9/11, or discuss our fiat money, or......?

These important issues are unheard from the "intelligent" neocons who dominate our presses and they're presence is growing on the internet. Their ridicule so crushing of those who do speak out about what or who they want silenced, that only a very rare, brave bunch are the ones carrying this burden. When any of our politicos suggest something as "un-American" as our slowly eroding Constitution, they, too, are silenced. Those neocons are a savvy bunch.

Bravo to Glenn for dissecting the shallow NYT article today. If mentioned by other MSM outfits, I bet they'll hail the NYT for its bravery instead of what it really is.