Thanks to a blindly compliant Congress and a tragically anemic press, the Frontline documentary is absolutely right when it pronounces: "9/11 indelibly altered America, in ways that we are just now beginning to examine and question."

I suppose. . . but I was examining it on the web and then on national TV beginning in October 2006:

http://www.current.tv/watch/14593683

Does that count? Probably not . . . I'm just a video blogger. . . after all. . .

prunes:

(Incidently, although I'd be very interested in seeing this documentary, the involvement of Frank Gaffney does not bode well: he is a PNAC signatory, which is to say, he is a crazy man who wants to rule the entire world, with no exaggeration.)

This actually understates the case. Geffney is where the ordinary neocons go to get their crazy vitamins. His greatest claim to fame is his long-time championing of Star Wars and other ventures to weaponize space. So, you see, the hierarchy goes something like this:

Who _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Wants To Do What

Reality-Based Community _ _ figtht terrorism

Neocons _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ conquer the world

Frank Gaffney _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ conquer outer space

P.S. Kitt -- you can see the several times I asked you the question about what the Roberts Court will do when you evaded it with "WTF?" and the like.

-- Jake007

There is no such thing as "The Roberts Court" and I really don't understand WTF your question is. Your "question" is like asking someone that if dogs could talk (for real) what do you think they would say? It's a retarded statement.

Could it be possible for you to do something beyond barking incessantly?

Don’t worry; be happy.

Ondelette (my spellchecker wanted to change that to “Undelete”) and essbee:

Modern-day terrorism, in large part, is a product of colonial British practices, WWII, and then U.S./Soviet confrontation. My counter-factual was raised specifically in response to the claim that Truman was wrong about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Knowing all the MILLIONS killed since that decision (right up through yesterday in Baghdad), it’s not unreasonable to discuss where better to have dropped those two A-Bombs (Truman probably would have had to bluff about having more than two as well) before Russia obtained their own. That would, of course, include knowing every Russian spy stealing our nuclear secrets. I also agree that dropping a nuke on Stalin and/or the Red Army may have led to even more killed -- maybe not – who knows for sure? Counter-factuals are NEVER 100% guaranteed. I’m willing to have taken that chance.

P.S. Kitt – sorry, but Mr. Greenwald has requested I only post once per page, so you will excuse me if I don’t waste that one post repeating myself to you multiple times over. Once you answer my question, in a civil manner, I will certainly return the same courtesy to you.

P.P.S. SomeNYGuy and L.W.M. – no thanks, but I will pass on your comments / suggestions for now too (although I speak several languages and have my doctorate in Russian history).

I know it's a standard part of the Salon LTE interface, and, I suppose, has some value for lurkers. But I really prefer the more democratic assumption that we all contribute to the discussion here. Unlike other Salon columns, Glenn's community has been about discussion and elaboration, rather than a contest that seeks editorial approval.

Just to be clear, I never use the red stars. I told Salon from the beginning that I found it unnecessary and counter-productive for several reasons. They said that they would try to do them every now and then when someone had time, so I guess someone has extra time today and doled them out.

In fairness, there are Salon readers who like the Red Stars and complain sometimes that with as many comments as there are here, they want the teacher to give them out to the best students so they don't have to wade through all the comments. But since this is really more of an ongoing discussion rather than a series of stand-alone letters, the stars don't seem to serve the same purpose here, other than to give the selected commenters something to show their proud parents.

P.S. Kitt – sorry, but Mr. Greenwald has requested I only post once per page, so you will excuse me if I don’t waste that one post repeating myself to you multiple times over. Once you answer my question, in a civil manner, I will certainly return the same courtesy to you.

This "courtesy" thing coming from a person who is all in with genocide.

It should be noted in any discussion of domestic spying that -- as has been documented by numerous former Bush insiders (DiIulio, O'Neil, Clark, etc.) -- the Bush administration "doesn't do policy." Everything is based on political calculation. It's all they do.

Even the Iraq War itself can be described more in terms of a political strategy for the 2002 mid-terms and the 2004 presidential elections than as a true geopolitical/national-security policy decision.

Since everything the Bush administration does should be viewed through a political prism, we shouldn't describe Bush's domestic spying as a legitimate national security strategy at this late date considering all previous actions and evidence to the contrary.

I think it's a safe assumption that the Bush administration's illegal domestic spying program was conceived and executed not to spy on terrorists, but to be used to gather dirt for political blackmail against political opponents and the press.

Since the FISA laws granted retroactive warrants and were virtually never denied, and since the Bush administration has *never* shown an interest in the legitimate functions of good governance, it is naive to come to any other conclusion other than that Bush and the neocons have abused the domestic spying program for political extortion.

The Republicans' stiff-arm salutes and the press' and Democrats' feeble opposition to this blatant illegality should only strengthen this conclusion.

To Paul Dirks -- Welcome to the club.

Paul D: The administration has been systematically using its hiring power coupled with a little noticed provision in the Patriot act to pack the DOJ with people who demonstrate a willingness to use law enforcement powers to target political opponents.

Paul Rosenberg links to a comment that I posted off topic yesterday. Since it is now on topic, I am going to repost it (if you have already read it, feel free to skip)...

Back in march (while commenting here as Patrick) I submitted a comment that asserted that we were looking several scandals in isolation, and not considering them taken together. The NSA listening to our communications, the NSL letters allowing the unconstitutional search of private records, the Missouri college professor's study showing that their had been newspaper stories showing the investigation of nearly three hundred democratic office holders, and the Justice Departmentents firing of U.S. Attorneys who were not sufficiently aggressive in prosecuting politically motivated cases, when considered as a whole, that " the possibility that democrats may be the targets of unwarranted, illegal searches, which in turn either initiate or further investigations by U.S. attorneys under pressure to file criminal charges against democrats." is dangerous and that "This situation has been instigated by people who think they have a right to power not necessarily based on law, constitution or fair elections. The potential abuse of these laws in tandem makes Watergate look like a tempest in a teapot."

There were some comments in agreement, and some who thought I was overreacting, but I have always thought the danger warranted my worried speculation. I have been half expecting that some sort of story would break in the time since, but that has not happened until...

May 11, Lane Hudson, Huffington post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lane-hudson/new-scandal-brewing-at-do_b_48230.html

...there is a hearing in Denver, CO. On Monday, there is a hearing in Chicago, IL. Depending on the Judge, the Justice Department could find itself in major legal trouble...it could be a watershed moment for another reason. Because of the recent oversight given to the Executive Branch, we now know that the Justice Department has circumvented the legal process and issued tens of thousands of "national security letters." These documents allow DOJ/FBI to forego getting a Judge's approval for a subpoena. In other words, it allows bureaucrats to violate the Constitutional rights with no Judicial oversight. It is also done in secret...But, there are indications that national security letters were issued in these campaign finance investigations. It is possible that this Justice Department abused the law to go on a crusade to investigate Democratic donors. So far, the Government has been unwilling to provide an answer to the question of whether or not this is true. If we're lucky, a Federal Judge in Denver or Chicago will seek the truth and uphold the spirit of the law and our Constitution.

I would like to say how shocked I am that this could happen in our country, but sadly, I no longer am. I also thing most of us are too close the situation and lack the imagination to think that democracy could be lost here. But, imagine if you had heard this about a different democratic country in another part of the world -- that the country had used their national police to create illegal investigations using illegal searches of the private information of political opponents and their supporters, and that those opponents and supporters were possibly subject to fines or imprisonment -- what would you think of that country? And how dangerous would you consider that sort of challenge to fair and open elections, and thus democracy itself?

Our MSM seems to think that the people posting and commenting in the blogsphere are impolite and overreacting. I think the MSM is fiddling while Bush and company light matches all about our own city on the hill.