The letter I originally wrote got so long that I posted it in my blog instead, and excerpt it here -- the reason that I fail to have hope:

While I do have some hope on the fronts of real freedom and the defense of the Constitution, I cannot join in with even tentative hope for the future of this country and the world. I might get lynched for this, but my heart is less wrapped up in freedom of speech than it is in the physical future of the land that I love. And I'm not talking about global warming. . . .

I don't want a planet like this. Our freedoms, our Constitution, our self-respect, these things we can fight for and win back, but a landscape once destroyed will always be scarred, and wilderness once taken away can never, ever be truly regained. . . .

Until I can walk into the wilderness and know that nobody is secretly planning to drill oil wells in it, or level its mountains and poison its water for coal mining, I will not feel hope. And right now, as the country is waking up a little to political horrors, it is hurriedly pushing tens if not hundreds of brand-new coal-burning plants whose fuel extraction will utterly destroy the land of my heart.

_________

Nick beat me to a Vonnegut quote, but here's an apt one for the occasion:

"There is no reason good can't triumph over evil, if only angels will get organized along the lines of the mafia."

--Kurt Vonnegut

________

I am utterly confused about this debate over libertarianism and Stalin. What has Mona's point got to do with anything? What is her point? So some people believed Stalin was great. I spend a lot of time in Russia, and can tell you a majority of the population still think he was great. They are mostly ignorant of the magnitude of his crimes (yes, really), and have an unwavering respect for "strong leaders." How does any of this pertain to the modern American "Left?"

All you have to do is read one issue of the Reason Foundation's publications to see how absurd absolute libertarianism is -- pretty much on the same level as absolute communism. Neither of them account for simple human greed and love of power.

Thanks for your letter. As you can see, we are all "America hating peacniks" here. You did omit one player from your list. however.

American Enterprise Institute, Feith and Rumsfeld, self-serving ex-Iraqi-patriates, weak (or skirted around) state department and national security advisors, a politically blunted, short-circuited intelligence apparatus and most of all Darth Cheney.

There is a good reason why. The mere mention of their name and you are branded an anti-semite. Bullshit. If you are unfamiliar with Col. Pat Lang's blog, you should enjoy it. No one minces words there.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/

His 2004 article, Drinking The Kool-Aid, might get you up to speed.

http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2005/09/drinking_the_ko.html

Wiki has a good entry on him. He's a retired military patriot himself. I think you two may have a lot in common.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Patrick_Lang

I want to see the truth.

For the scholarly audience, Treasonable Doubt goes beyond a mere assessment of the facts and evidence. In his concluding chapter, Craig challenges the works of partisan journalists and historians who, he claims, "fail to apply rigorous standards when assessing the evidence relating to accused subversives." Their works, says Craig, are "replete with errors of fact and obfuscation of interpretation," and, because they reject any notion of "contextualization of fact," they find smoke where there is no fire. Craig challenges historians of espionage to consider an "alternative standard of proof," one that brings together the standards of historical research and inquiry with the existing rules of civil and criminal procedure in order to more critically assess espionage cases.

If I thought I'd get it from Haynes and Klehr, I'd listen.

I just don't think I will. And no sensible person should, not given past history and their "fellow travellers". The question is, Mona, do you want to continue "travelling" with those people?

First of all it is based on the notion of natural rights, which, as Bentham said, is nonsense on stilts.

Second, libertarians elevate one value, negative liberty, over all others like positive liberty, equality, security, solidarity, compassion etc. These kind of single value theories are easy to sell rhetorically but don't make much sense.

Third, in practice libertarianism is usually disingenuously held by those who really only seek their own narrowly conceived financial interest and have no concern for other people. That's why we see contemporary Republican extremists spouting libertarian rhetoric while violating libertarian "principles" at the drop of a hat.

I have had the same feeling as Glenn for some time that there is a momentum building in the congress, media and electorate that can't be stopped and that will have implications and consequences far beyond Watergate or anything we have ever seen in the history of our presidential administrations.

Bill Moyer's outstanding PBS journal on how the media failed us may not have hit the nation and the media with full force yet, but it will. Those media who are still journalists at heart and who have not had their souls bought by corporate influence, have felt sick in their hearts for the role they did not play in the build up to the war. They will now feel safe enough to come out, fess up and attack. It is no longer in the hands of the bloggers and few brave media who were largely ignored.

George Tenet's book is a smoking gun even though it apparently does not contain a wow blockbuster fact. It ties together the role played by the American Enterprise Institute, Feith and Rumsfeld, self-serving ex-Iraqi-patriates, weak (or skirted around) state department and national security advisors, a politically blunted, short-circuited intelligence apparatus and most of all Darth Cheney. Somehow Tenet remains loyal to Bush. Maybe the puppet Decision-Maker tried to do the right thing. To me, he is deeply flawed by psychological insecurities that made him very vulnerable. He became our president and the buck stops with him. He will now be held fully accountable before he leaves office, not after.

The Dark One and other Neocons took full advantage and we should be totally outraged. We are. Some Americans just haven't taken that feeling from their gut to their brain yet. Mark Glenn’s words. History will. Our brave, dedicated military deserve no less.