..said they were getting "a ton" of calls on this issue, sounded quite happy about it. They also suggested people call Harry Reid's office -- when I asked for the # the young feller said he didn't have it on hand but he'd go look it up so he could give it out to the next caller.

I called Harry Reid's office (202-224-3542). Had to wait on hold for a bit -- hope that's a good sign, but the staffer there didn't seem very interested in my call.

@shooter242

Nobody's in the mood for your bullshit today. This is serious, not a joke. If you had any brains you'd be scared too. Get lost.

-- Jordan Orlando

My reply to shooter was going to be a much ruder two words. But, what you said.

He was attempting to undermine the credibility of this article, and GG in general, by fabricating a lie.

-- dalefi

Guys, guys, guys. Man Man was making a humorous joke. Little satire. Ha ha. Cool thy jets.

Yes, he did forget brother Robert Greenwald.

My Man Godfrey is making funny.

(Love the family names, MMG!)

You are just so mean. Mean, mean, mean. (I was going to say you obviously have issues, but tiberius, always ready with the unintended humor, stole my line.)

These people serve. They work hard. They love our country. And they want to make it a BETTER country, one where they and their friends get all the toys, money and bombs. Can't you understand that and just leave them ALONE?

When it comes to attacking other countries, I just tell 'em I'd rather the Saudis were attacked because bin laden and so many of the hijackers are/were Saudi. It isn't a hard point to win. Even neocons tend to agree, but then say it won't happen no matter how justified.

-- Tyler_Mason

My brother still believes Saddam had something to do with 9/11 and did have WMDs, so I really think there's no getting thru to him at this point. I hate even trying, for selfish reasons -- the big brother whom I adored for all these years has turned into a raving moron. Don't want to face that.

But, re the Saudis, it might be a good argument to work on cons, but not one I would use, since I don't think we have any business bombing Saudi Arabia either.

Best wishes on your continued good work.

To reach a conservative partisan you have to reach back to the clinton administration, perhaps further depending on the age of the listener.

It's a basic principal of advocacy (and sales) - always tailor the message to the audience. You have to focus on what they will hear, not what you will say.

-- Tyler_Mason

But it's so danged hard. I've been trying with my brother, but I just can't keep my head from exploding. After he informed me that we needed to attack Iran because of the people who jumped out of the WTC on 9/11, I decided that it wouldn't be I who converted him back to sanity.

Sad thing is, libertarian me and conservative him used to agree most the time, and gang up on our ultra-liberal sister, but when Rush and National Review got their hooks in my bro in the 90s he seemed to lose his ability to see reality. At this point, I think a military take-over of this country MIGHT wake him up, but then again, he'd probably think it was a good thing.

Glenn, Glenn, Glenn, your adherence to that quaint old custom, the Rule of Law, is touching but so pre-9/11 (or, in this case, maybe even PRE-pre-9/11). You speak as though you actually think ALL men (and women) are equal before the law, even the Little People. Please. You must realize we live in difficult times, serious times, when people who really know What's What MUST be in charge and allowed to do the Right Things to Protect Us ALL!!!! Otherwise, the terrorists will win, we'll all be wearing burqas, and people like Richard Cheney, who only have our interests at heart, won't be able to do what they want, nay, need to do.

Your constant harping on quaint concepts like the Rule of Law, Geneva Conventions, etc., is getting quite irritating.

Didn't you vote for Bush?

Ahh haaa haa haaa. Grow up! Good one!!!

Genius.

Since they seem unable to clearly define who the "enemy" is and what "winning" would look like, it's hard to take them seriously when they say we're winning.

Hell, they can't even define who "we" are. "We" were supposed to be the American Empire plus Secularist Chalabi and the "let's build a pipeline from Iraq to Haifa!" crew. How does it work when it's the Empire and a Shia who wants to be friends with Iran?

But I guess if you define "winning" as One Giant Fustercluck, then, yup, we're winning!

She's as bloodthirsty as pretty much any Republican, and more bloodthirsty than Ron Paul.

Er, RP ain't bloodthirsty at all. He's strictly non-interventionist.

The article echoes left-wing thinking about More War, and it's also full of unattributed quotes and information.

Maybe both sides do it?

-- Jim

The difference is that in the Hersh piece, he is quoting people the government doesn't want you to hear. They are sources that need to stay black in order to protect themselves.

Ignatius is quoting people the government DOES want you to hear, i.e., it is propaganda. There is no need for these sources to stay black, except to protect the government.

BIG difference, and one most of the press seems to have forgotten.