I feel a little overwhelmed, posting Letter 465, but you asked two direct questions:

I have a question for supporters of the Israeli attack on Gaza: Prior to the Iraq War...

I was against the Iraq war from the beginning. Here in MN, some of us supported Wellstone's vote against the authorization. You seem to assume that there are only two positions, and that if you support Israel's current actions then you support Bush's exceptionalism. At least for me, this is not the case and your question is irrelevant.

For supporters of the Israeli war in Gaza: is there some number of Palestinian civilian deaths that, once exceeded, renders this war unjustifiable?

I'm tempted to answer in either of two ways: 1) It isn't a "war," it's a response to the refusal of Hamas to continue the ceasefire. Your question is irrelevant. or 2) 0. The conflict isn't justifiable at all... and neither are the attacks on Israeli civilians. (And some of those Israeli civilians are Muslim.)

I don't like what Israel is doing. But I understand it. I hate what Hamas is doing, and I don't understand it. Hamas could have had peace... they could have had a country... several times over the last 60 years and kept throwing away the opportunity. I'm with Golda Meir: "There will be peace in the Middle East only when the Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel."

Blogs (and bloggers like Glenn Greenwald) have taken the place of more traditional news sources because they have a memory. Not so long ago, a newspaper story would have a little backstory, and there might be a siidebar placing the event in context and an oped piece with an arc of history.

Journalism has been replaced by ideological advocacy. The 24-hour news channels have shortened even their attention span.

"Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us." -- Jerry Garcia

Oh c'mon, Joe. What nonsense. Even if this were true, which you supply little evidence for, it's hardly relevant to his credentials to become the next Attorney General. Indeed, it may be a plus for the Obama administration to have greater international connections.

Eight years ago is a long time in politics, and as you say he didn't even have the final say over the pardon. Republicans whined about it at the time and they're still whining. Please don't sink to their level.

One of the sad legacies of the Bush Administration is the promotion of utter lies as God-given facts. Many on the right toe the line to their version of Political Correctness and don't have the cojones to admit when they're wrong.

And, worse, the more absolutely certain you are, not whether you're correct or your predictions were borne out in the past, is the qualification for high position. Too many Bush appointees are ideologues and deliberate incompetents. That's the audience The Atlantic is playing to.

I'm so glad the adults are in charge again.

During the campaign, McCain continually promoted himself -- and by extension the GOP -- as the candidate with the best credentials on foreign policy and military affairs. While possibly true on the individual level, Bush/Cheney/McCain were saddled with the military that Rumsfeld left them and the policies largely driven by incompetent ideologues.

Obama, at least at first, has decided his priorities for "change" are elsewhere, and left Gates as Defense Secretary. While Gates is much better than Rumsfeld, and continuing the current set of commitments and treaties is justifiable given the deployment of troops around the world, I can't believe Obama will stay this particular course for long.

That having been said, I think Obama is correct to support Israel and Egypt and help secure international/protected waters. We can promote democracy and influence policy as allies far more than we could as adversaries. No one seems to be able to control Hamas, not even Fatah.

Similarly Afghanistan. Bush screwed up our only justifiable military action after 9/11, but Obama is in a position to do better. Let's hope he can.

Conservatives undermine their own credibility, or what remains of it, when they commit heinous crimes and then refuse to face the consequences. So much for "individual responsibility".

Further, they don't want just anyone having the same privileges, and constantly seek to destroy unions (and union reps and collective bargaining), rail against trial lawyers (those who fight against highly-paid corporate lawyers on a contingency basis) and tighten their sphincters about minor crimes (like marijuana possession).

A two (or more) tiered justice system is hardly the creation of snot-faced Republicans in the US, but the American ideal is equality and justice for all. At some point, character matters. The far right has declared a Culture War and finds itself on the wrong side.

Whenever I'm in a bank line and they've got Fox "News" on one of the tv monitors, I complain. The exasperated question is always, "What would you rather have us put on?" After mulling it over, the answer seems obvious: The Cartoon Network. I'd rather have some fun, brightly colored, anthropomorphic creatures bouncing about then hear lies and distortions. I recommend The Cartoon Network when you're on the road. And the NASA Channel. But I digress.

If you build it, they will come.

Many of the Depression era buildings, from schools to armories to midwestern football stadiums, put people to work and created a lasting infrastructure. Sphincter conservatives just don't get it. Heck, they don't even understand the difference between "socialism" and "communism". See my essay http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html .