Brilliant rhetorical analysis and perfect timing strategically - I love the pre-emptive aspect!

Mr. Greenwald should focus on very similar fraud and rehabilitation themes raised by the upcoming testimony of former EPA Administrator's Christine Todd Whitman before Congressman Nadler's Subcommittee regarding Whitman's false and misleading propaganda statements that the post 9/11 toxic air was safe to breath.

Will Whitman pull a Scooter Libby? Or will she name names?

From someone that closely followed Whitmna's anti-regulatory, corporate, voluntary compliance envrionmental policy model while she was NJ Governor, the main stream media's swallowing of the Whitman "as moderate" myth (i.e. as the envirornmental white hat fighting the Cheney and Card dark forces) this nacent fraud is especially painful.

I can personally attest to the negative impact the Rather attack has had on journalism and how it has embolded some to try to supress negative press coverage. I prefer not to name names or provide details that would disclose the individual reporter involved, becasue they were shared with me in confidence, I must be somewhat vague.

I obtained a very damaging internal government memorandum via a public records request and file review. This memorandum revealed that the agency involved was aware of acutely hazardous conditions and failed to warn the public or fix the problem. As a result of this failure to warn and act, people were seriously harmed.

I provided this memo to the NY Times who was writing a story about the incident and explained the meaning of the memo. The NY Times reporter contacted the government agency for comment and was told that the agency ocould not authenticate the memorandum, and warned the reporter, in an attempt to kill the story - quote - "you don't want another Dan Rather moment".

I got a call back from the reporter shortly after - the agency's remarks were shared with me in confidence. But I was then asked, on the reocrd, to explain how I obtained the memo and how I could authenticate it. The burden shifted to me adn I got the sense that either the reporter or editors were reluctant to go with the memo as the lead in the story.

The Times went with the memo story, but the coverage did not reflect the "Rather" pushback, although there was a sentence in the story that described how the memo was obtained.

If these hardball threats are being made overtly to the NY Times, I can imagine there is lots of smaller media outlet and self censorship going on out there.

The answer to the question of why Bush has brought more women into power was answered by Collin Powell's characerization of the political role of EPA Administrator Christie Whitman:

Wind Dummy!

I would add: to serve as an excellent source of political cover. Whitman was a master while NJ Governor of doing green wash photo-ops - like hikes, canoe paddling, horseback riding, and bicycling - to mask her anti-environmental policies.

At a psychological level, some might say the source of the Bush women's problem starts with his mom. But I'll leave that to more knowledgable sources.

The speculative and inrementaal contribution to the wildfires is dwarfed by the far more important cause: poor land use.

It makes no sense to build in hazardous locations.

In the rush to make the global warming case, environmentalists and the press are missing the real cause, and the real story.

Excellent post - before bed last nite - pumped up after Red Sox game - I was reading from "American Speeches" and re-read Mario Savio's "Speech in Sproul Plaza" (Berkeley, December 2, 1964). His words resonate today:

"And that, that brings me to the second mode of civil disobedience. There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

saying that he would obey the Congressional ban on waterboarding as consistent with his Constitutional commander in chief powers.

After so many signing statements (including the McCain amendment) why wasn't this obvious question asked? (or did I miss that?)

These are not constitutional questions, having been written into the constitution, amended into the constitution, and settled in the early 20th century by the Supreme Court.

So, there can be no constitutinal principle on which to base these arguments - are we to go back to the delegation doctrine, sanctity of contract, private charity, and Trust robber barrons?

Worse, politically, Paul equates imperial and military government with welfare state government. This is outrageous on its face as a matter of law and policy.

This country faces a crisis - we are on the verge of excpanded middle east war, peak oil, global warming, and economci collapse.

To jeopardize a presidential election with the likes on Ron Paul is far worse and more irresponsible than third party Naderism (and I agreed with Nader in his recent debate with Robert Scheeer at the Nation forum). Far, far worse.

Shocking column, Glen, just schocking.

You forget history and propagate more myths about alleged limited federal government as the original intent of the framers.

The Articles of Confderacy provided weak federal power adn strong state power - the COnstitution replaced those Articles to strengthen the federal government adn form national republic.

WE have been living this framework for over 200 years - when will you recognize it?