This one goes into my Best of Greenwald file.

Somehow authorities just know to minimize threats from would-be Great Evils, never letting Unabomber types puff themselves up beyond the petty criminals they are. What happened here? We went out of our way to monumentalize Al-Quaida, coronating Osama as Greatest Evil in the process. Almost like somebody wanted a Grand Enemy.

Shooter, it's encouraging that you read Steyn's blurb as a concession. It shows you, at least, think one is in order here. I guess we'll have to wait to see if that's how he meant it. I'm betting Glenn is reading it correctly, and that Steyn simply meant most of the electorate just aren't up to the challenge he and his warrior bro's are, but if we find out otherwise I'll send Steyn a thank you note. Either way it's good to see you coming around.

I don't propose to let President Johnson off the hook for escalating the war. He did, big time.

However, in suggesting, as I have, that he was in over his head, it is with the knowledge that John Kennedy sent the first military advisors into Vietnam and was meddling with the South Vietnamese leadership (check out the events leading up to the assassination of Diem, which occurred barely two weeks before JFK was killed).

There's a legitimate line of analysis that says Johnson was not really aware of everything that Kennedy was doing on a covert level when he was killed.

The vice presidency was weaker then (not like it is now with Cheney), and Johnson was not part of the Kennedy circle.

Also, the CIA was involved in Southeast Asia in the 1950s. The American leadership, coming out of World War II, supported French efforts, including France's military moves, to re-colonize Vietnam, underwriting that it with plenty of money and other support.

I remain sympathetic to Johnson the man. I think that, as a man, he had some good intentions. He defines for me a truly tragic figure, someone who falls from a great height. Tragedy, if it works as story, is supposed to provide some catharsis; and I remember him that way to some extent.

There's a film on him (sorry, can't think of the title right now), done a few years ago, which goes to this aspect, with Michael Gambone as LBJ.

It's just a movie, and it's hardly definitive, but it does contain, I think, something truthful about that time and something about some people I can rememer.

Now that I think about it, a middle-aged woman who still weighs 100 lbs. could be useful in a host of situations. Goodness, girl, you could be the Joan of Arc of Islamophobia!

But I'm certain you won't stake your life on it.

I used to marvel at how idiotic the selection process for the growing Potential Terror-Enabling Enemies List seemed to be becoming: vegans, librarians (currently working or retired), local pacifists, etc.

I gave myself headaches smacking my forehead in disbelief when the Chickenhawk in Chief would berate media that questioned the administration for giving away super-cunning strategies to the enemy.

Then I realized the intent was more to maintain and inflate the sense of participation among his dumbass support. It's the same principle that urged small town (and brained) to be on guard for Commies in their local schools, libraries, and malt shops that sustained the McCarthy era.

The essential element missing from Glenn's analysis is the blank cheque provided by the threat of "weapons of mass destruction" (which is a dangerous vagueness all by itself). The segue is from the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack -- the sum of all fears (where have we heard that) -- to the need to do whatever it takes to stop it. This is the universal blank cheque, drawing upon that fear. The interesting question is -- dare I say it? -- how to defuse this? Given that it is some kind of possibility, and related to that, the idea that, unlike in the days of the Soviets, the nukes are supposedly out there wandering around in the murkiness, so not under "rational control" -- this seems to me to be a political puzzle for people trying to retain some semblance of the traditional restraints on executive power.

I'm just trying to figure out why anybody would want Steyn on their side. Aside from the fact that, if he were to recant and admit that "islamofacism" is not the threat he's been hyping (which, for those without good reading comprehension, he did not do), he would immediately be thrown under the wheels of the right-wing humvee, to cheering by ... well, everybody, but also, what would he bring to the other side? I mean, it's not like he's an authoritative and respected pundit.

You are kind to ask? He's grown sideburns, wears a caterpillar on the upper lip, and speaks with a lisp.

bebob-o attends GOP wedding as often as he can.

When he sees a GOP groom about to wed a wife,

he feels it's a civic duty to wince, flap his hands,

and stutter-scream, "Don't mary and populate!"

`

He's not here as often and vows to be a monk.

He's not picking a fight, rather he's dreaming?

I'm trying to believe this nightmare will end?

If not -- We best learn Mandarin cuss words!

How does a GOP translate pinhead into retch?

It sure looks a concession that "fearmongering" is passe' to me.

You may think that's Steyn's point (I don't), but it's certainly not Greenwald's.

You seem to be dismissing every passionate, well meant effort as self serving.

Is it your point that "warriors" and "peace activists" or "social justice advocates" should all take themselves less seriously?

Is "class war" a "supreme war of civilization"?

From the perspective of someone in India, there is a war of civilizations, of sorts. There is a faction of Muslims who are akin to American rightwing Christian fundamentalists, except on steroids, who feel it is their deity-given right to dominate and impose themselves on everybody; for whom politics is war and for whom no holds are barred, including terrorism. (What was "Direct Action Day" after all?) And just as the failures of conservatism are justified because we have had "true" conservatism yet, the failures of this brand of Islam are justified by its followers, because we have not had "true" Islam yet.

The interesting thing is that this faction is productive of nothing - its existence continues because of petroleum money, (in the past support from colonial powers) or support from rich states, including the United States on occasion (e.g., the incalculable harm done by supporting Zia ul Haq). Left to its own resources it would collapse into a non-entity very soon.

So, this war of civilization, such as it is, does not require any heroic action, but merely the steady building of the institutions that can deliver economic growth and social justice.