Or more likely, avoided a show trial in absentia. Show trials and reneging on reform are all the Dems have to offer. Besides running down the country via it's choices about leadership, that is.

So Glenn is speculating, on whether the NYT is speculating about Iran, or not. Fine, it's a fair question. The central problem here is exactly the same one we had before with Iraq.... how does one make decisions with imperfect information. There are two fundamental requirements for determining what to do, if anything about Iran.

(1) Knowledge of the opposition. Why is our information so lacking?
This the real key to everything. If there are secular sources in Iran why aren't they speaking?
Why is the intelligence community floundering around in apparent incompetence?
Are political concerns in the intelligence community helping or hurting?
Are political points like the Torricelli principle (only boy scouts can be spies) hindering our vision?
What is needed to produce some real knowledge?

(2) What is the threshold for military action? (Cassus Belli for the eggheads.) What is intolerable from Iran and where is the consensus for action. Is Iran justified in having a nuclear bomb? If they are weapons suppliers is that sufficient for action of some sort?
Until those questions are resolved everything else is just arguing about the number of jellybeans in an opaque jar.

Correcting the spelling of we lesser mortals. Meanwhile, the deficiency of our intelligence remains unremarked upon. Well, I suppose one must have his priorities. Heh.

Welcome to my world. The reception you received for daring to criticize the residents, is why most of my remarks are designed to be preemptory. I appreciate your efforts to point out the difficulty of having a dialog with people that brook no dissent.

@Glenn
Perhaps you could follow up your criticisms of the media by encouraging more reporting from areas where information is sorely needed. The piece provided earlier from Hitchens about his experience in Iran was the right stuff. It's hard to get excited about Iran's ability to even get a power station going after hearing how badly other projects have fared. Why there is such a dearth of information from Russia, Lebanon, Iran, and all the other spots we have conflicts. For all the technological advantages we have, one would think we'd be better informed. Especially after seeing the results of bad intelligence up close and personal.

Are they floundering? How much good information is unknown to a/o ignored by the doyens of our political media?

Some items to consider...

* After the leaks to the NYT, one has to consider portions of the CIA and other sensitive offices in government to be independent of, and counter to, the Bush administration. If those folks really think attacking Iran is folly where are the leaks to inform the public?
* If the MSM thinks it's folly to attack Iran, why not report from inside Iran? I was surprised by Hitchens report that Jews and Christians worship freely, unlike Saudi Arabia. If this is our current greatest threat to peace, surely it's worth examining the workings of Iran. Apparently, as a political promise, threatening genocide there is on par with promising healthcare here. Is that true or not?
* If Bush is getting a one-sided view from his team, what countering information is available in the public realm, that can't be discounted?
* Glenn seems to have traction with the media. If putting the rhetorical boot up the butt of the MSM to get overseas, cultivate real sources, understand the actual situation with the status of nuclear development, has possibilities, I say go for it. If Hitchens can go in without a press visa, surely some intrepid soul from the MSM can as well.

Significant, real, immediate threat to our national interests. That is the only threshold for action of any type, and the pot-bangers of the pro-war faction haven't demonstrated that Iran is enough of threat to America to justify open warfare.

Like it or not, a country that has a president threatening genocide, and pursuing a nuclear program is the ultimate nightmare. It cannot be ignored as just unlikely, that would be negligent. Ahmadinejhad sent children into minefields to clear the way for Iran's troops. Clearly he has none of our western inhibitors and can't be judged by our standards. There is no reason to think he would be concerned about fallout, retaliation, or setting off a general conflagration, just whether he strikes at Israel. It is truly monomaniacal, and Hitleresque. The base question here isn't intent, it's capability. Can he do it? Well, we don't know, and right at this moment it is the single most important question in the world. One would think that instead of commenters indulging in the luxury of protecting their little piece of cyberspace, they'd be howling for the government to issue ironclad information, or beating on the MSM to pick up the slack.

There was a similar spike of humanity in a few of his comments in September of '06 as well.
Uh oh. I must be getting soft. I officially declare my moment of humanity over.(g)

There is "good", and there is the "not good". There is certainly no denying that for most commenters here, Bush is indeed the personification of evil... oddly because he, believes in Evil and thinks it should not go unchallenged.

Even more oddly, this book is all about evil and nothing else. Is there an assumption that after Bush leaves, all will be "good" by default? Or is the hate toward Bush so focused that Bush leaving is sufficient and nothing else is worth advocating?
Awfully shallow don't you think?

The irony is that the descriptions of the dangers of religious fervor apply even more aptly to Islamic fundamentalism. Yet they go unremarked upon. If there is a truly Manichean worldview, it is aggressively embraced there. Bush will leave the stage and yet the world will remain little changed. How about some vision that isn't so limited?