During the whole Anthrax debacle, I happened to watch CNN late at night. A female reporter talked about the results (preliminary?) of an army investigation that suggested that the anthrax was stemmed from an American strain. This news floored me, since this actually seemed to refute Iraq connection. The next day and the following days, I kept watching CNN and other news sources to find out more about these findings. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. As if the report never happened. To bad I did not record it (how could I have know?)

Mr. Bush:

"And we are ready to begin building that relationship – in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops."

This did not make any sense to me or my wife. What interests do we the people of the US of A have in Iraq that need protecting? Is this some sort of republican code language?

Mr. Bush:

"To Iraq's neighbors who seek peace: The violent extremists who target Iraq are also targeting you. The best way to secure your interests and protect your own people is to stand with the people of Iraq. That means using your economic and diplomatic leverage to strengthen the government in Baghdad. And it means the efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine that government must end."

Once more, we have this ?dubious? use of interests. Also, please note, that the protection of these interests must be achieved via diplomatic and economic means, not violence. What gives? Does the USA have a monopoly on using violence to "protect" its interests (whatever they are, in a country that is not our own)?

That's the point. Mr. Bush did not spell out what "our interests" were (Oil? Kill them there so that we don't get killed? Bases? Combo of all?). Plus, who is "our" (Big oil. Big Business. Ordinary citizens of the USA)? I guess it should not be shocking for our president to openly change is angle from "Iraqis need freedom from Sadam" (of course, after finding no WMD's) to we will not stop until our interests are met. If I were an educated Iraqi who happened to hear this, I might be slightly peeved at this "We've invaded your country and won't leave until you meet our interests" angle (oh by the way, lots of you are dying or getting forced out of your homes).

And then we have the hypocrisy of imploring other countries to use economic and political tools to deal with Iraq (and of course, once more w/the other countries interests).

In both cases, the interests of the Iraqi people seem to be null and void.

MSM:

At what point has the MSM ever been better? Did someone not point out that the MSM was just as bad during Vietnam? Was the Watergate reporting not just an aberration (?Timberman?)? How many Watergate stories (Secret prisons, illegal wiretapping, torture, bad hospitals, etc) are there today as opposed to then (somebody else will have to chime in what stories broke / did not break before/during/after Vietnam).

Maybe all this time, our reliance on the MSM has been faulty.

Republicans/Democrats:

Why would they care about what WE think? How much profit is this war bringing to the already wealthy people? Would any demonstration (less fuel usage, payment skipping, less shopping) really have an impact on the war machine? There is billions upon billions to be made by constant warfare. Does anything outside the military complex even matter anymore? Would any of our “impact” on the economy hold a candle to the wealth and power of the military complex?

How about this: large groups of citizens attend sessions of the House and Senate on the same day and, after eating something vile, vomit on Congress.

First you have to make it into the building / onto the floor. Leg breaking seems to be a new occurrence when visiting such places...

Glenn already has pointed out that a revolt by the military would NOT be good. But, will that even be possible? With private security contractors growing larger in numbers, will the military be in effect sidelined? Does this explain the seemingly deliberate destruction of our military?

From your blog:

It is no secret to any educated man of letters that we are living in the second great decline of Western civilization.

Hey, at least let me have a seatbelt so that I can enjoy the ride...

Good ol' US of A:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_God

How about: Götterdämmerung

As Glenn has pointed out in the past, the MSM still provides some investigative functions that blogs cannot yet handle (due to budget?). Even this discussion thread start with a link to a report produced by MSM. How does this report, and the other reports about torture, spying, hospital conditions, private contracting, etc compare to the reporting of Watergate? Are transgressions that are being reported in this time frame not yet at the level of Watergate? If they are, what is different this time around?

How do we make what happens in DC "real" to the Average Joe/Jane?

Longer hours, less pay, no insurance, no job, etc... Is that not already "real"?

The public domain has been steadily eroded, so that it is now possible to imagine leagues of corporations nearly as rich as the federal government---certainly richer than many states.

So can we still have any impact on these mega corporations? Or are we just by-products anymore?