Rob Edwards explains how documents written in 1970s and marked"personal and top secret" reveal that British civil servants believed the British nuclear deterrent needed to kill ten million Russians in order to be effective.

Watch John Pilger's"powerful and timely investigation into the media's role in war, tracing the history of 'embedded' and independent reporting from the carnage of World War One to the destruction of Hiroshima, and from the invasion of Vietnam to the current war in Afghanistan and disaster in Iraq" here.

Geoffrey Wheatcroft is right on the money. Go here to read one of Britain's most insightful journalists.

Comedy from Britain to brighten your day.

This essay in the history of economic thought is worth reading.

Simon Jenkins explains that"The job of the media is not to protect power from embarrassment. If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the UN director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport."

Paul Craig Roberts asks"Who is cowing Americans into submission, terrorists or the TSA Gestapo?" Worth reading.

Thanks, Keith, for bringing Ralph Nader's essay about George W. Bush to our attention.

Back in 2008 I too thought Nader ran the most encouraging campaign of all the third party candidates, if only for his advocacy of the case against war.

Looking ahead to 2012, what is the chance that the Libertarian Party will make the case against war a top priority of its campaign? I invite readers who know more about the LP than I do, to share their thoughts on this topic here at Liberty & Power.

David Bromwich writes about The Fastidious President.