If I remember correctly, the obvious next step is to refer to and tout this article far and wide on the Sunday talk shows. Is there an effective way to get ahead of them and neutralize its impact?

I'm curious to see how the anonymous troll would rationalize an American attack on an enemy power plant, or some other such object of infrastructure. The primary victims are invariably going to be civilians (oh, but they're the 'enemy'). How is it that America is somehow justified in bombing 'enemy' civilians while such an act by the 'enemy' is so abhorrent and anathema to the ways of war?

You, the anonymous troll, rant and rail against the rationalizations of Ward Churchill (leaving aside for the moment how you seize upon him as somehow representative of 'liberals'). I'm genuinely curious to hear how your justifications differ from his.

Previous comments reminded me of 'The Power of Nightmares', a 3 part series from the BBC examining the rise of both Neoconservatives and Al Qaeda. I highly recommend it, and it is available online - I found it just now using google (the url was massive and I confess I don't know how to use tinyurl, otherwise I would include it here).

As other commentators have pointed out, the constant invocation of Al Qaeda is intended for both foreign and domestic consumption. Domestically it lends weight to the case for continuing to occupy Iraq because America supposedly has its enemies in its sights. In Iraq it serves to unite Iraqis against an external threat - or at least it would were they not exposed daily to the outright falsity of the claim.

In the long run, I believe this propaganda will backfire horribly. Al Qaeda will be able to claim victory over America in Iraq (conveniently ignoring, as does the administration's rhetoric, the largely nationalistic nature of the resistance). The short sighted goal of propping up support here at home will result in a huge propaganda victory for the Al Qaeda brand.

RealName... isn't that essentially what we're doing in Iraq when we arm sectarian militias and send them after our enemies? It sounds a lot like arming the Bloods to deal with the Crips.

I just wanted to add my thanks to you Glenn, for so often putting into words what I cannot.

My frustration renders me unable to adequately respond to charges that I somehow 'hate America'. It seems all I can reply with is "! But I do hate your vision of America!"

Everything the Bush administration and its enablers have done and cheered for these last 6 years has been completely contrary to what America stood for, and why I loved it.

Perception can trump reality for only so long, though it seems too long for my taste. That's one of the reasons I've read your blog since the day I was pointed in its direction - finally a collection of voices to know that I was not alone in seeing past the curtain of propaganda.

Also - on a different topic, just wanted to say I love the term "The Parrots of Versaille"... it just fits! I'm sorry I cannot recall the exact sequence that led up to it, but all have my thanks.

As I understand it, Iran is governed by unaccountable forces, much the same (as it seems to me) to be in America. Unaccountable in that it does not reflect the actual desires of those it purports to represent.

Now, for the sake of argument, imagine that Iran somehow manages to mount an offensive capable of overcoming American military might. Say Iran manages to nuke Washington and several other key US targets... what would your reaction be? Would you thank the Iranians for ridding us of a maniacal administration? Or would you forever curse the ***holes who killed untold thousands (millions?) of your fellow citizens whose only crime was to be the unwilling vassal of said administration?

Oh, but Iran didn't use nukes, they 'just' used bunker busters and other weapons... does that lessen your anger?

What I'm getting at, or trying to, is that an attack on Iran is the absolute LAST thing we should be considering with regards to changing the posture of the Iranian people. We've already seen what American bellicosity has done with respect to Iranian opinion of the U.S. (the election of Ahmadinejad). How much worse would it be if the U.S. were to murder several thousand of their friends and family? I suspect it would be the same as if Iran had done the same to us. As much as I despise Bush and what he has done to our country, I would hate all the more a foreign power dictating to me what was best, especially if it meant atomizing my fellow man.

"If you want a friend, be a friend" - I've f*cked up more relationships than I care to count, and if I can relate one lesson of what I've learned it is this: there is no surer way to make someone become an ***hole to you than there is to be an ***hole to them. Be a dick, and expect to be treated as such, anything else would be hopelessly naive.

In essence what I ask is this: If Iran overthrew our leadership, would you rejoice or revolt? I suspect revolt. Why would it be different if the roles were reversed?