Before Tierney and Brooks were isolated behind the NYT wall (I refuse to pay to read the likes of Tierney and Brooks), I would occasionally send a letter to these two practitioners of the right-wing talking points spout. While I recognise that these aren't the only ones practicing some sort of spout, these folks in particular seem to use it to denigrate rather than to lift up.

I would rather hear these two come up with some sort of non-partisan rant, so they can be judged as writers rather than cheerleaders.

I understand the sort of desperation Chambliss must feel, now that the lies are being shown as lies, and corruption is being known as corruption. People of Chambliss' ilk don't bother me by saying I'm aiding and abetting the enemy, because they have made it pretty clear what kind of folks they are. What does bother me is that somehow they think that any good can come from their actions. I can't figure out if they really believe this stuff, or are they knowingly taking these actions as a last resort?

Gitmo must be emptied, and then reserved for one thing. Use it as a storage area for bush and cheney and all those aiding and abetting these criminals, while they await transport to the Hague for trial for war crimes.

Who said 'To thine own self be true'? It is understandable that Col Boylan would not understand, but one would expect Gen Patraeus might. What might be influencing Patraeus to kiss up to bush? Does Patraeus really think the course that is set will be successful? If he honestly believes that, then why would he avoid an interview with Glenn? If Patraeus is honest, then the best action Patraeus can make is to do the interview. I assume Gen Patraeus has the guts to do it. C'mon General, pony up.

Petraeus needs to put an end to this, as it is a continueing stain on the military, on the US, and on himself. Will he betray us?

Pardon me, continuing. Carry on.

Just want to mention that my spouse is affiliated with community college administration. I have suggested that Glenn's writings should be required reading as examples of clear, precise and logically presented pieces. Thank you, sir.

Establishing a permanent red state majority is a stated goal of members of this administration. Evidence mounts that almost any tactic is allowed by the administration to achieve that goal. Many point out apparent gross incompetence within the administration, yet if it is only competent in building the foundation for a permanent majority then our democracy may be doomed. Perhaps Americans sensed this when they created a democratic congressional majority in 2006.

Many groups supporting this administration have gained inordinate power from that support; mercenaries, right wing religious groups, and gun groups come easily to mind. Meanwhile evidence mounts that the military is being politicized, and infected with evangelical christianism, even as it is being trashed in the useless war in Iraq.

If the goal of permanent red state dominance has become unachievable, then a similar result might be gained by imposition of martial law, although it would be very messy.

All of this seems paranoid thinking, but considering the bizaar behaviors of this administration and its supporters during the last six years not considering it might be unforgivable. The point? Boylan appears to have inadvertantly opened a crack that Glenn is exploiting to help identify and fight the power that may be arraying against our freedom. I don't think for a second Glenn is subscribing to the scenario I've described, but is it time to put some context into the discussion of why this is happening?

Bush and minions* don't appear to worry about perceptions of their criminality by the majority, which is most worrysome. What is a possible end game of their tactics? It appears that the probable results will be republicans being voted out of power for a generation, but it makes no sense that they are purposefully undermining themselves. So where is this going? Two possibilites come to mind: first and foremost, Bush and minions will attempt to pull off a Muscharraf sometime before a Democrat becomes the next president. They own the evangelicalized military, the religious right, the mercenaries, the gun owners and many more of the unquestioning, so they have the potential power to pull off a coup. What protects us is their evaluation of the ability to pull it off. Considering the incompetence with which they performed past evaluations, we could be in big trouble.

The second approach will be to so totally destroy our institutions that future presidents will need to devote massive energies only to trying to restore them, giving Bush and minions time to perform to developed strategies to retake power to continue toward whatever end current ideology drives them.

Planning ahead may include devices such as developing tactics of a massive national stike in case of scenario one, the planning of which will forestall attempts to take control of the US. Making plans such as this may seem radical, but considering the potential dangers to our democracy it almost seems due diligence.

*Bush and minions may be interpreted as a driving force consisting of money and vision by a cabal including certain large corporations, individuals with known radical beliefs and vast resources such as Murdoch and Sciafe, certain religious institutions, and a minority of the population whose partianship is unthinking. George W. Bush displays no evidence of the capabilities of leadership, vision or execution necessary to envision, plan or execute a coup.

Bottom line: democracy in America needs leadership NOW, to provide vision and planning so that Bush and minionism will die its deserved death right on schedule.