...was to defuse the building outcry for a true accounting of what happened before and during 9/11.

congress had already proved incapable of providing credible information. so we needed a commission that was independent, at least in name. phil shenon's book on the commission really suggests just how much of a potemkin commission it was, zelikow's complicity being the largest of the howling conflicts.

so the truth still hasn't truly come out. (i'm speaking here of the malfeasance and incompetence of administration officials who were not doing their jobs; that's scandal and conspiracy enough for me.)

no, i'm not surprised at hamilton's response -- he's learned after the fact how much of a tool he really was. don't you think he knows there were reams of evidence that he never got to see?

i see that hamilton had time to declare his superdelegate vote. just no time for glenn.

why did zelikow have a better answer? because zelikow has a better handle on what the commission did not see (and a hand in making sure it did not see). oh, and he's better at lying. i'm sorry, misspeaking.

yes, the whole constitution-as-suicide-pact argument, if it ever had any real merit, has long since been discredited for the shrill distraction of a rationale to shred our rights it is.

ever notice that the folks who beat their chests so furiously and declare themselves the arbiters of who is and isn't a true patriot are the absolute quickest to toss out constitutional limits when it pleases them? such is the sociopathic mindset of the authoritarian. they are IN this society, but not OF it.

they actually have contempt for law-abiding citizens, and why wouldn't they? they don't have respect for the laws the rest of us abide.

i never bought into the concept that rights in a true republic were bits of fine china to be shelved at the merest hint of disturbance, fragile gifts to be restored (or not) only when the authoritarian says it's safe to.

my country was founded on the robust application of the freedoms that are strong enough to weather attacks on them, and the people who use them, and on the defense of same. those who would give these rights up are a timorous, fearful lot, and no friends to this nation.

glenn,

you're right, of course; a 25 point spread is stone cold proof that the citizens of this nation have made up their minds.

what's troubling is that, really, no one in a position to bring this necessary change in washington seems to regard such vox pop as anything more than an annoying sideshow. even obama, frankly, has gone lighter on iraq as he tries to woo conservative dems from the clinton camp.

it's as though there's some pact NOT to make iraq a defining element of this campaign. and i suspect as times get even harder this year -- and they will, we all know this -- iraq will continue to lose stature in the mix of issues.

the disconnect between the citizenry and their elected representatives on this issue shows just how complete the washington cave-in to corporate interests is (because whatever ism or ideology we choose to blame for this disaster, it wouldn't have happened unless the money was there to be made). that smoke you see on both ends of pennsylvania avenue is from the rubble of the collapse of the republic.

glenn,

it's obvious. he has dedicated his entirely life to relentless cheerleading of dishonest causes.

how many of us can even hope to aspire to such heights? he's a five-star general of the fighting 101st keyboards.

pace,

dmg

...come next year, the problem will still be in congress. because the permanent government is a subdivision of corporate america.

indeed, i'm not sure how effective a progressive president can or will be in the face of lukewarm support and outright opposition.

as you probably remember, it's now a neocon article of faith that deficits don't matter. indeed, that's what cheney famously said to paul o'neill, the treasury secretary who took issue with a second round of tax breaks and likely as a consequence was one of the first reality-based bushites to be sacked.

deficits don't matter? that's the cover they give when they want to raid the nation's treasury for tax cuts to the rich, or to finance a war that rewards the military-contract complex. but it's clear that, of course, they DO matter, and that democrats, not republicans, are those who act on this. (see: clinton-era economic boom.)

that's also why this easy, pernicious meme of "tax and spend democrats" must be fought and fought hard: it simply hasn't been the case for more than a generation. dems have at least demonstrated an ability to exercise judgment, an ability republicans apparently lack and, typically, deride dems for having.

...doesn't preface virtually every response to the serial idiocies foisted upon them and their campaigns as "critical issues" with the following:

"this is another in a series of republican talking points that hope to distract the media and the public from the real issues that affect the nation. if i were a republican, i might consider doing that too, since the record they have to run on is easily the worst in the nation's history. but surely we're better than that, and here is the topic the voters need and want us to address instead...."

if a reporter insists on following up on a trivial issue, the candidate should say again, "you're following someone else's agenda. please explain why this trivia you seek my response on matters."

if they say something like well it goes to issue of character, say, "only for the most glib, simpleminded and shallow. and you're too good a reporter for that."