Paul Dirks: In shooterworld, Ahmadinejad is totally dishonest if it pushes us toward war or he's totally honest if it pushes us toward war. He's completely rational if it pushes us toward war or he's absolutely insane if it pushes us toward war.

Glenn:This is a great point. They do the same with bin Laden. When he says that his terrorism is motivated by U.S. interference in Muslim countries and/or its support for Israel, he's lying and shouldn't be listened to. When he says that Iraq is a key battle against the U.S., what he says is the Gospel and that he says it should definitively resolve the question.

And this differs from your kneejerk responses concerning Bush exactly? It doesn't. Anything and everything Bush does or says is sure to bring up howls of protest, with folks here trying to outdo each other in condemnation. Yet amazingly, Iran is being defended here in their pursuit of nuclear technology, as reasonable and rational.

Commenter Michael Harold declares that Iran using a nuke would be suicidal. That assumes that anyone would be able to identify Iran as the source. Given the recent war on Israel by Iran and Syria via Hezbollah, how is that supposed to work? It won't.

Some of the fatuousness of people here is just stunning in general. A recent post and comments bemoan the taking of children into custody. How about the fact that in the Iran-Iraq, children were used to clear minefields for the regular troops? Ahmadinejhad was in charge of such a corps.
http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-world

That is the person promoted here as reasonable and peaceful. I will happily go on record as being opposed to invading Iran, but some of the foolishness written here as to the nature of Iranian Government is stunning. The spirit of Neville Chamberlain lives on.

Berger lied. Libby's tried. As always, IOKIYAD.

By the way Libby wasn't found guilty of outing Plame, he was convicted of having the wrong recollection of where he heard about her.

Line of the week from Victoria Toensing paraphrased.... If Bush can pardon 12 million illegal immigrants he can certainly pardon Libby.

To which I'll add, if the previous administration can pardon Puerto Rican terrorists and ex-pat tax evaders, Libby looks like a walk. The upside to all this, is that Fred Thompson's defense of Libby looks better and better.

Even though Rove likely did not commit an actual crime in confirming this detail to Novak, (or in telling Matt Cooper of Time Magazine), he was bandying about the name of a CIA employee working in counter proliferation without checking if she was covert. It was careless and negligent, even if not actually criminal.

So are you comfortable that your President continues to employ someone so incompetent in a high office of Deputy Chief of Staff of the White House? -- Scientician

Well let's see, we have Rove saying "I heard that too" to Novak, and "Wilson's wife" to Cooper without mentioning either her name or employment. No crime, not even close. Yet we have Cold Cash Jefferson caught red handed with marked bills and videotape, who won't resign.

Perhaps you should tend to the "culture of corruption" on your side of the aisle first. Heh.

I'm with Joe - it's going to be great to see Chemerinsky (who's an outright genius) tear Cheney up. I hope the suit gets to that stage.-- UsedtobeKristin

Yes, it will be entertaining to see Wilson explain multiple prevarications resulting in getting fired from Kerry's campaign, and Plame explain the perjury (Waxman hearing)of the mysterious man in the hall who suggested her husband and not her.

With any luck at all, Plame will explain how, if she was so covert, she blurted out her job description to Wilson on their third date in a moment of passion. (Vanity Fair) I'll put my money on them chickening out before it gets to trial.

“If people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters,” Caplan writes, “it is a good idea to rely more on markets and less on politics.”

The economic cost and consequences of not pardoning 12 million illegal aliens would seem to indicate that.--Anonymous

And that is also a good illustration of the idea. I think that if conservative attitudes were more closely examined folks would find a willingness to extend amnesty, IF, the border fence were erected. Amnesty is a separate issue from establishing control of the border. If control were established, the rest would follow. Nobody thinks trying to send back 12 million people is feasible.

Put in market terms, value is largely determined by scarcity. Making illegal immigration very difficult, makes the immigrants already here more valuable. If there is no end to the tidal wave of bodies, who cares what happens to them?