Is it?

Glenn,

Thanks for pointing out that questioning this policy is not questioning the military as much as it is questioning how those in charge of the military would use the brigade stationed in the US. That is the real question, especially with the current set of civilians in charge of the executive branch.

"for whom the greatest sin, apparently, is questioning any policies involving the U.S. military"

Glenn, why are you using the same tactics of false dichotomy that we all despise when coming from incompetent media or the right? Replace "apparently is" with "seems to be" and you have their much-reviled formula nailed.

I enjoy your posts but don't let the name-calling affect the quality of your work.

Glenn, why are you using the same tactics of false dichotomy that we all despise when coming from incompetent media or the right? Replace "apparently is" with "seems to be" and you have their much-reviled formula nailed.

You don't speak for "we all." Did you read the posts to which I linked? Due to the questioning of this deployment -- and due only to it -- they are casting accusatory innuendo of anti-military paranoia. What other conclusion is possible other than the fact that they consider it sinful to express concern about policies involving the use of the military?

A mere decade after the USSR imploded, the USSA rises from the ashes.

I'm afraid because so few seem to notice, care, or question this.

I read Bateman's post that you linked to. He was so deep into his 'Glenn Greenwald don't know skit about the military' line of attack that he used several examples of domestic use of military with which to knock you around with, none of which are or were the same thing as what is being proposed now in this instance.

He accused you of being ignorant because he was claiming that you didn't know about this or that time when the military had been used in a domestic situation. When, in fact, it seems to me that more likely you didn't mention those uses of the military because they weren't comparable to a brigade being trained for a full time domestic use in the United States.

Even though Bateman's comments may have ventured too far into ad hominem territory, I would still like to see Glenn and Bob at least hash out some issues here. Bob's is a voice I respect on matters military and historical, and a dialog between the two would be most interesting!

Coming soon to Salon?

-"Is the Federal Reserve Unconstitutional?"

-"The NAFTA Superhighway: Road to the North American Union?"

-"Buildings Don't Fall Down Like That: What REALLY Happened on 9/11"

-"Spreading the Wealth: Barack Obama's Hidden Socialist Agenda"

The timing of this deployment brings up all sorts of questions.

During an election with a Democratic candidate whose loss of the election could inspire mass protests.

Just months before Bush is scheduled to leave the White House.

Are they "expecting" another terra attack between November and January?

Is this Salon.com, or Alex Jones' Infowars?

Yeah - the ACLU is well-known for its support for 9/11-Truth-Theories and accusing liberals of being socialists.

And don't think I've forgotten this -- from you:

This will be Obama's legacy: going from beloved to reviled in under a year. He is in the process of blowing an election that should have been a sure thing. Mark my words: by the time President McCain is being sworn in, it will be widely understood that the nomination of Obama was the worst blunder in American political history. He's not going to win, people. You know it and I know it.

I'm not sure the country can take another four years of GOP rule. Obama is the only thing standing between the GOP and the White House, and he's letting us down. He'll be remembered as a villain, as the man who made it possible for the Right to continue its assault on the American people and the rest of the world.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/07/02/obama_fisa/permalink/df182a5e6c4982db086ca07391842a45.html

He is one of the only TRUE American Heroes remaining, besides GG and a few others.

Alex Jones has been very close to correct lo these past eight years. I remember him back in the late 90s, and how people thought he was whacked.

Today, he is MAINSTREAM, with a remarkable record of having predicted precisely what is happening right NOW in this formerly GREAT nation-- to the point that many question whether he is not really a spokesperson for the NWO people.

The man has a great curiosity and encyclopedic knowledge of the facts and he does not shy from speaking up and questioning the prevailing hegemony. On the other hand, what have YOU done lately? (other than practicing your Nazi high steps, hand salutes and the best blow job techniques?)

Dudley Do-Right-flaps-bat-wings

Only 'ol Fu Manchu

Can divine the mystery of these things.

@GG: "You don't speak for 'we all.'"

Good God, no wonder trolls hang around here so much... you're incapable of separating emotion from criticism. Don't question my reading of your links when you can't even read my simple comment correctly (or are you implying that lots of people around here enjoy the employment of false dichotomy in debates?)

I've followed your blog for a while and agree with lots of what you say, but this particular exchange with Bateman has been illuminating. When you find yourself saying "what other conclusion is possible other than.." while assuming your opponent's motives, you've got nothing.

I was thinking the same: what if the Republicans cheat their way into the White House again and Americans who care about the Republic and the Constitution finally put down their remotes and take to the streets?

So what other motives are there? It's a legitimate question, you should answer it.

...thank you, Glenn, for an insightful and informative post. I had not heard of this deployment prior to reading your column.

""They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE," states the Army Times."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/416

Even shunting aside, for the moment, the preliminary question of whether this deployment passes legal muster, another basic question comes to mind, to wit, what sort of scenarios involving "crowd control" and "civil unrest" are envisioned that would necessitate the use of the national army? Isn't this what the state-controlled National Guards are for? Oh, I forgot; they're off fighting in Iraq...