Another interesting aspect of this blurring of the lines is the degree to which the hard Left has adopted the GOP strategy of "dog whistling" to bigots with the drumbeat of talk about "bankers" and "Wall Street" and "financiers" who "own" our "government and media." Is it a valid criticism? Certainly, in much the same way that right-wing criticism of the enervating effects of Great Society welfare state were valid. But that doesn't change the fact that such criticism is also deliberately crafted to appeal to the folks who see a hooked nose behind every nefarious plot.

So you think Dick Durbin was sending out a secret call of support to anti-Semites when he said this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/dick-durbin-banks-frankly_n_193010.html

I certainly don't see the "relevance to this discussion" of anything that Irving Kristol allegedly said 36 years ago.

Perhaps you'll explain.

I think -- without being certain -- that Sean was refuting the claim made as part of yesterday's comment section that Jackson Diehl's column about the Israel/Gaza War had nothing to do with my arguments about America's state of endless war. Sean appears to be arguing that Israel and America's wars are linked.

My guess is that he either deliberately or mistakenly put that argument here rather than in yesterday's post where it belongs, since (as you point out) none of that has any bearing on what is being discussed today.

I would agree with you if the people protesting today were the same folks protesting over the past 8 years. But I think you've missed a huge point. If people are angry with government in general, that's neither left nor right. But if these people only speak out against the government when it's run by Democrats, they're absolutely right-wingers. And the same principle applies to people who hated the debt under Bush but don't under Obama - they may pretend to be nonpartisan, but the timing of their outrage speaks volumes.

I've made this point many times myself, including in this very post, but you're overlooking one important fact, which I also highlighted: there was a group of small-government activists that were protesting the Bush excesses every bit as much as they're protesting now: that was the movement that ultimately manifested in the Ron Paul candidacy. They hated Bush, despise neocons, and were screaming during the Bush years about civil liberties transgressions, war, imperialism, the Wall Street bailout and expanded government at least as loudly as most liberals.

It's true, as I said, that many of these protesters are nothing more than GOP fanatics who couldn't care less about their alleged principles -- as evidenced by the fact that they were not only failing to protest, but were cheering on, George Bush and Dick Cheney. But that's untrue for many of them, and it's important to be careful about not generalizing to the point of inaccuracy.

Follow Mr. Greenwald's mistaken diatribes, and what will you get?

NUCLEAR TALIBAN!

Don't let the smoking gun be in the form of a mushroom cloud!!

They are invariably warmongers and the correlation is absolutely strong. The connection is as plain as day.

Libertarians of the Ron Paul variety are both "fiscal conservatives" in the way that term is used as well as opponents of war as vehement as anyone found on the political spectrum.

Glenn, please don't underestimate the number of Americans who consider themselves fiscal conservatives but are also leery of foreign entanglements, especially wars. Your column leaves an impression of connecting warmongering with fiscal conservatism. Perhaps such a connection exists within the Republican ranks in Congress, but among Americans in general the correlation is not nearly as strong.

You mis-read what I wrote. I didn't say that fiscal conservatives are almost invariably warmongers (which is what you're objecting to).

I only said that converse: "the people who beat the drum for endless, debt-creating wars and a bankruptcy-inducing imperial foreign policy love to parade around as 'fiscal conservatives' and 'deficit hawks'."

Military leaders seek military solutions to strategic political goals. That's their job.

No. Military leaders advise the President on the best course of action. It's hardly uncommon for them to argue against particular wars. Particularly generals are not meant to be mindless warmongers who advocate the most hawkish action in every case.

Of course, once the President orders a military action, it's their job to carry it out as successfully as they can regardless of whether they agree with it. But that's not the same as saying there's nothing notable about the fact that they tend to favor military action. Moreover, this post isn't really about Generals per se but about the factions that determine our foreign policy, of which military leadership is only a part.

If a military leader convenes a group of military-associated think-tankers to analyze his/her strategy, then it's likely that they'll come up with a solution which focuses on strategic options which are military in nature.

Why isn't it just as likely that they'll say: this mission is wrong and counter-productive and the optimal thing to do for America's interests is to end it?

If the military (or think-tankers invited/hired by the military) were to propose a strategy that advocated NOT using the military, that would be surprising.

I believe that's the exact point I made. That's why it's not surprising or newsworthy that this General and his handpicked team of war-loving think-tankers want more troops. That's my whole point.

I think you forgot to answer some questions:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/09/19/cia/permalink/fdc424f93b9a66f6a3c1281a4bb966a2.html