The virtues of rye should not be overlooked either, while we are appreciating American whiskeys, especially in properly built Manhattan Cocktails, which have been particularly edifying for me of late.

Sazerac Straight Rye Whiskey is lovely for that purpose, and the name is somehow onomatopoeic, though I can't explain why I think that.

Well, it's a damn shame what happened here today. I frequently use my scroll button on GG's threads, primarily for trolls, often enough for legitimate yet excessive or contentuous posters, but rarely for B & K. Anyway, scrolling works for me. Happy New Year to all...

"It's like the bar, "Cheers"

Said Retzilian, catching his reflection in his computer screen and momentarily mistaking himself for the exceedingly handsome Ted Danson. But then:

"There must be fewer IDIOTS allowed to trash the place or they will destroy this blog. I know of what I speak."

Said the once again not quite so handsome Retzilian, having just remembered all the bars in Boston over whose rest rooms he had righteously and copiously puked before rapidly making his exit in the hope of avoiding detection.

Ah, the ups and downs of life, where would we be without them?

They rely on their good relations to get people to come on the air. If they seriously challenge any one with real questions there is no show. We have been seeing that for the last 8 years. They have not learned their lesson and refuse to accept that they are not doing their job. Gregory and Williams both rejected any criticism of their "reporting". So don't expect to see anything different.

Masterfully done! And, very well said. I feel honored to be a foil for such a comment.

From the link to a White House press conference transcript you posted I found the following. The first point I want to make is tangential to anything you were writing about in your article. However as it is an important point I'll make it any way before moving on to the point that does directly pertain to what you wrote. This is Bush on March 6 03:

For Immediate Release

Office of the Press Secretary

March 6, 2003 8:02 P.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. I'm pleased to take your questions tonight, and to discuss with the American people the serious matters facing our country and the world. This has been an important week on two fronts on our war against terror. First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials, we captured the mastermind of the September the 11th attacks against our nation. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings and directed the actions of the hijackers.

The man Khalid had only been arrested 5 days before and all ready G. Bloody. Bush thought it appropriate to gainsay, undermine, presume the innocence or guilt and quite irregularly supply a steer to those people properly authorized to carry out interviews and gather such evidence that might arise and format it in the manner necessary for a proper trial.

We do many things wrongly here in Britain. But had a Prime Minister been so loose tongued and as presumptuous as to pronounce on a man's guilt before even the police had had chance to interview him there would have been an uproar. News paper editors, Law Lords and Police Chiefs would all have made public statements telling the said Prime Minister in no uncertain terms to wind his neck in, get back in his box and wait for the trial and its outcome like any other citizen would have been obliged to do.

Was there a similar out cry in America? Don't bother answering. Still stumbling around in a state of self indulgent group post traumatic stress disorder two years after the fact this extremely suspect irregularity probably went unrecognised and buried under an avalanche of other execrable irregularities that were happening daily.

Now here is my main point. First a short description of what happened to Khalid after he was apprehended:

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time. In September 2006, the U.S. government announced it had moved Mohammed from a secret prison to the facility at Guantánamo Bay.[5] Human Rights Watch and he himself have claimed that the American authorities have tortured him, a claim that was admitted to be accurate on February 4, 2008, when it was revealed that he was subjected to the controversial technique of "simulated drowning," also called "waterboarding."[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed

Bearing in mind that directly above Glen, when you said the following was it based on what Khalid might have told his captors? This is what you said in your article:

"If you ask Al Qaeda why they fly civilian-filled airplanes into civilian-filled buildings in response to American hegemony (and endless military actions) in their region of the world, they'll explain that jihad is hell and anything done to advance it is justified."

You see Glen, if you are basing that statement on what Khalid said several problems arise.

First, you would be basing your view on what was said or what had been extracted from an individual who had been subject to torture. If you have instead come to the conclusion that al Qaeda have admitted to flying planes into skyscrapers from other sourses could you provide us with the links that so persuaded you of this. I'm sure a lot of us will be all ears as no doubt will be the FBI who at least have no evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement. Confirming link:

Ed Haas: “FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

A second point I would like to make is this one. In my first letter to Salon I suggested to you that you might want to take a look at the NIST Final Report into WTC7 released this year. You saw fit not to comment on my suggestion. Fair enough. But if like so many journos and commentators you are going to "plead the fifth" about 9/11 could I humbly request you make it total. You see there might be others out there who have not thought fit to make their own enquiries into 9/11 and when reading statements like the one above might think, like so many others did regards WMD after Powell's UN speech that the matter was all well and truly done and dusted.

This is NOT the case at all!

In fact not only are an increasing amount of highly credible people including increasingly concerned members of the American Society for Civil Engineers going over NIST with a fine tooth comb but suggestions are now being made that certain members of NIST's investigating team had better look closely at what they have written because legal people are beginning to move in and compile dossiers that could lead to criminal charges of creating a false alibi.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-aLDLY

So I would be grateful if you can clear this point up. What has convinced you Glen Greenwald that al Qeada has admitted to your satifaction that they flew jets into the towers?

(P.S. It would be a shame if you of all people had to wait until the fucking elephant in the room that everyone insists on ignoring had to go a die and stink the place out with its rotting carcass before you woke up and started paying attention.)