PETER JENNINGS

... I think Americans believe that there are millions of Iraqis who would be free, who would be happy to live free from the leadership of President Saddam Hussein. Do you believe that to be the case?

DR. MOHAMMED MOTAFFER ADHAMI

... during the British occupation, Iraqis were suffering. And the British were stealing our oil. It seem that now, the Americans want to do the same.

Thanks for the post, Glenn. This particular section that I've selected reminds me of Charlie Rose's interview, where Sinan Antoon emphasizes that:

1) The "reason" for invading the war changed many times. The above quote clearly indicates that invading Iraq was never perceived by Iraqis as something related to WMDs, and that the MSM was already making an excuse for the Bush administration by citing freedom from Saddam because they realized the argument of WMD was too weak.

2) The oil sector is, sadly, the only well-functioning infrastructure in Iraq now.

Even more revealing is Charlie Rose's vehement reaction to Antoon's observation about the oil sector. Which simply strengthens Antoon's argument of political amnesia: obviously Rose is trying to sell the idea that America was liberating Iraq from a dictator despite the fact that America had a colourful history of supporting dictatorships in the Middle East.

Thank you for illustrating the nature of the stalemate so well.

Now what do we do?

I'm not sure it's a stalemate. As GG points out, right-wing blogs and politicians can get away with associating with people who have made incendiary racist, militarist or just plain stupid comments and yet are not held accountable for that. Of course, bloggers like Instapundit get all defensive when others mention it and brand us as hateful. On the other hand, Obama gets hounded for not wearing a lapel. It seems like we're on the losing side here. So what do we do? Keep making noise, commenting on blogs, writing letters to editors. It may not work but it's the best we can do.

I read the editorial by Paul Campos that was linked and, in the comments section, there were accusations that DailyKos and Huffington Post are hate-filled websites, and that liberals are the problem because all they have to do is call someone a racist or a Nazi, which stifles all discussion.

conservatives are the problem because all they have to do is call someone an America-hater or a socialist, which stifles all discussion.

from presenting such a biased survey? I could understand if other journalists in MSM refused to admit that they were wrong when they acted as a mouthpiece for the Bush administration's lies and propaganda five years ago. Since Rose was one of the few people who actually interviewed valid experts opposed to the war prior to the invasion, wouldn't he have much to gain by saying that he was one of the few people who presented a fair discussion, especially since the public sentiment now is vastly against the war? Wouldn't that secure his reputation? Alas, perhaps if the public had a better memory.

"Only with the press corps that we have could a candidate who is so plainly nothing more than a third term for George Bush -- one of the most despised presidents in modern American history, plagued by recession and a deeply unpopular war -- have a plausible chance of winning. But we do have the press corps that we have, and therefore McCain does have a chance of winning, as irrational as that is."

For what it's worth the other Republican candidates weren't that much better either: Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, Thompson, anyone?? But in order to be "fair", the press corps has to provide a "balanced" approach to the Republican and Democratic candidates. Hmm, maybe they figured, "Hell, the current administration is so horrible that most people will hate McCain, so let's just lavish praise on him".

Seriously? The former wanted to publish a book recounting how he killed his wife. The latter made some controversial statements because he was fed up with the direction in which his country was going. Sure, they both belong to the same group...

I feel your pain. Editors- please reply.

Glenn deceivingly converted her argument that critics should be suggesting more solutions, to being about her self-defense.

She admitted she has "a great deal to answer for." Her point was that we should spend more time on solutions.

Obama should be engaging in a robust debate about what to do about Iraq. He should be attacking Clinton about Iraq in the same strong way that Glenn is attacking McCain and co here.

It is true that those who advocated war are not really worthy of supplying possible solutions. But also, those who were against the war were not advocating sensible alternatives about what to do with dictators and terrorists. So anti-war people are not especially qualified either.

The real solution is that in the same way we have local police to stop local violence, we should create an international police force for stopping international violence (war and terrorism).

The point is, how can we suggest proper solutions if the politicians involved in this debate are ones that ignored international law and the consequences of war in the first place? Glenn's doctor analogy sums up the bizarre notion. Nor are we saying that anti-war people are extremely qualified. The politicians who were against the war in the first place were labeled as cowards who were disloyal to America, unfortunately, their voices were drowned by the war hawks. The disqualification, therefore, seems that those people did not challenge enough politicians like Slaughter who advocated the war.

And I'm sorry, but an international police force simply won't work. There is Interpol, but it's simply not possible to create a force that will curb local violence to the extent you suggest. An international police force would simply generate corruption and bureaucracy. Which laws would they enforce? International ones? The fact is no country would allow the force to operate in their borders, citing the all-powerful "infringement of national sovereignty".