I have applauded your recent focus on the failings of the press. But I completely agree that habeas corpus is the bright line between civilization and tyranny, that forcing our government back into the light is the most important change we can make right now, and that the duty belongs to the Democrats in Congress.

You wrote forcefully about it at the time. I compared it to the German Enabling Act of 1933:

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/The_New_Enabling_Act_0927.html

Every day this outrage is allowed to continue makes it that much less likely that this country will regain its place of honor as a free society.

Or, of you prefer, a saying from auto racing: you have them "driving in the or mirrors" -- too concerned about the competitor on their tail to effectively concentrate on the road in front of them.

Many of us have been railing at the courtiers -- Somerby, Digby, and remember the immortal Bilmon? -- but Versailles could pretend not to notice. You are forcing them to respond, and their defensive illogic only serves to highlight their flaws.

BTW, Glenn, another commenter quoted something I sad in a comment a few posts ago to the effect that I applauded your recent emphasis on the failings of the mainstream press, and you objected that it was not recent. I in no way meant to imply that you were late to the party -- I agree that you have been pointing out their follies from the start of your blog.

But I do think that my sense that you are now putting greater emphasis on it now is confirmed by the data. I actually went back and compared April 2007 @ Salon with April 2006 at Unclaimed Territory. By my (subjective and probably inaccurate) count, in April 2006, 4 of 28 substantive posts were about the failings of the MSM. In April 2007, 22 of 36 were. As I have said here previously, I think that shift is exactly right -- the Democratic-controlled Congress can do the heavy lifting against Bush and his enablers. Your well-deserved pulpit is now best taken advantage of by doing exactly what you are doing.

Leaving isn't winning. There was never any scenario that included leaving.

Me, 2004:

If you start from the naïve assumption that the Bush Administration means what it says, you perforce reach the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq has been a failure, and that the goals of its anti-terror policies hover near a horizon too hazy to make out whether we are gaining or losing ground. But this view is based upon false assumptions. We are in fact exactly where George Bush wants us to be: endless war.

If you reverse-engineer administration policy from the consequences of its actions, this conclusion is inescapable. What are the results of being quicksanded in Iraq? Young Americans come home in boxes, of course, but we know that Bush has never lost sleep sending others to their deaths.

Seemingly unnoticed is the remarkable coincidence that the other effects created by this administration's policies are all manna to its masters. High oil prices fatten Saudi royals and American oil barons alike. The endless cycle of bombing and rebuilding in Iraq is a windfall of unprecedented scale to companies like Halliburton, who deliver munitions and reconstruction projects in equal measure.

...

Contrary to widespread belief, this Administration has learned the lessons of history well. The problem is that they read Orwell's 1984 not as a cautionary tale, but as a "Dynasty for Dummies" handbook, a late addendum to Machiavelli's The Prince.

From Bush's perspective, Iraq has been a total success, as has the cat and mouse with Osama. He had no plan to "win the peace" because he has no intention of winning it - winning implies that the war is over, and peace is the one unacceptable outcome.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/10/21_war.html

That this is all as true today as it was nearly three years ago nauseates me. That the mainstream media and the Democratic leadership still ignore the obvious is even worse.

Bravo, Glenn, for trying to hold their feet to the fire on their fact-phobic reaction to the truth about Plame's status. But I don't think your ridicule will gain any more purchase than reality has.

Something I think we need to keep in mind here is that making up their own "facts" is a strategy without a downside for these folks -- especially the right wing bloggers. When they made their mess of "Hummelgate," both branches of the decision tree were good for their heroes in Administration: if they were (by dumb luck) right, it's Rathergate all over again, and the left is discredited. If it turns out that they were wrong, well, no problem. Some mainstream sources will give them a pass; others will tut-tut about those untrustworthy bloggers. The difference between the Glenns -- Greenwald vs. Reynolds -- is a subtlety far beyond most reporters. A blogger is a blogger is a blogger. And because (in reality) our side of the blogosphere is sui generis, while their half is a largely redundant echo chamber, anything that damages the credibility of blogs hurts us more than it does them.

So what an exciting game for the right wing blogs -- every enter is a winner!

Glenn, re: points 1 & 2:

The reason they choose to misunderstand your criticism is that they cannot confront the criticism without acknowledging their own complicity in a monstrosity.

The problem is not limited to a single story or a single reporter. It is a problem that permeates an ecosystem. And these tools of the powerful cannot admit that the system is flawed any more than fish can criticize water.

I am skeptical that they will ever hear; skeptical that they will admit hearing; skeptical that they will change. But it is vital that we keep hammering.