Dear Glenn,

Most blogs limit the participation of readers to making comments, and they tend to neglect possibilities for involving readers more actively. In your case, there is the PAC you formed with Jane Hamsher. (Shouldn't there be a link to it on your site? I just spent a few minutes searching for it unsuccessfully with Google.) But . . .

. . . I wonder if you can't give your readers further possibilities for activism.

For example what about in your critiques of media coverage in at least some cases supplying contact info--in the manner of FAIR. Probably not usually to individual reporters such as Ross Douthat, but what about to ombudspersons or editorial offices? In this case :

Clark Hoyt, Public Editor, New York Times, 212-556-7652, public@nytimes.com

Obviously there is a lot of activism among your readers, but wouldn't this help get messages across to Washington Post, NY Times, etc, and generate more corrections by them themselves?

Thanks for all your great work. It's an inspiration.

Walter Miale

The question whether or not to prosecute crimes by leaders is a political one as well as an issue of justice.

Here is the political issue: Do we want our government to be able to get away with murder and torture, or after the trauma of recent years do we want a government which adheres to the law and to common decency?

Aren't those who oppose prosecution thereby ready to overlook the perversion of government (as well as of justice)? What could be more political?

"And Chuck, it's a critically important political issue, not a sideshow. Yes there is a financial crisis, and a health care crisis, and a global ecological crisis, but there is also a crisis regarding justice. Isn't there?"

Walter Miale

You write that Jimmy Carter advanced Israeli security when he engineered the Camp David accords. But the peace with Egypt, which did not take into account the Palestinian situation, left Israel a free hand to turn its attention north and to invade Lebanon, with a perpetuation of Israel's "Palestinian problem" and catastrophic human consequences. It was a war on civilians, and resulted in the deaths of 19,000 people.

Walter Miale

You wrote: "According to Haaretz, a new poll in Israel finds that 'only one in five Israeli Jews believes a nuclear-armed Iran would try to destroy Israel. . . .' As always, it's striking how much more rational and open debates over Israeli security issues are within Israel as compared to within the U.S."

Ande it's also striking of course how much more rational the public is in both countries than the policy-makers and their enablers in the media.

FAIR reports (at www.fair.org/blog/2009/03/13/dci-contradicts-obama-clinton-iran-claims-where-is-the-press/ ) that "Corporate media outlets treat U.S. intelligence agencies with solemn reverence when those agencies are reinforcing official views about American enemies and friends.... But stray from the nationalist straight and narrow, and these otherwise respected sources risk becoming invisible, perhaps even suspicious."

The latest instance, reported by FAIR, is the reports of Hillary Clinton claiming Iraq is pursuing nuclear weapons, while reports Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair's denial of this are ignored.

Glenn, you wrote:

"The word "liberal" has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last eight years. All that has been necessary to qualify is a belief in such radical, exotic and fringe-leftist concepts as search warrants before the Government can eavesdrop on our communications; due process before the state can encage people for life; adherence to decades-old Geneva Conventions restrictions which post-World-War-II America led the way in implementing; and the need for an actual, imminent threat from another country before we bomb, invade, occupy and destroy it."

Doesn't it all boil down to this: Liberals believe office-holders should uphold their oaths to preserve the constitution.

Walter Miale

The National Intelligence Estimate re Iran's nuclear program was invaluable in reducing the insane war fever, but in truth if Iran enriches uranium (as it can legally do) it will be close to being able to make nuclear weapons. So there is a time factor. It is important to negotiate a timely settlement with Iran that will guarantee its security in exchange for its willingness to forego domestic uranium enrichment. This doesn't justify Obama's dangerous rhetoric, but it is important to keep in mind.

Re the assumption that some supporters of the invasion of Iraq "would have changed their minds, concluding that the costs (human, financial and otherwise) were too great to render the invasion justifiable":

Of course some would and have changed their minds, but I think this is relevant: there are people today who say regarding the Vietnam War, in which three or four million people were killed, that the US mistake there was not persevering and "winning" that war.