The greatest threat

That's very easy to figure out. American Republican Christoconservatism/fascism alligned with American neconservatism, is by far the greatest threat to the world. Islamic terrorism, while very unpleasant, doesn't pose an existential threat to any western country. As a matter of fact, they have failed to topple even one Arab or Islamic regime. The lunacy of US based conservatism, highly aggressive and itching for miltary confrontations, fused with Rapture lunacy and imperial hallucinations and equipped with a vast nuclear arsenal, is a clear and present danger to the world.

-- pantanal

No, Islamic terrorism is no threat, unless you happen to live in the United States, Israel, Russia, Spain, England, Lebanon or Bali, and just as long as you are not a moderate, freedom-loving Muslim in Iran, Syria, or the Palestinian territories.

Leave it to the Salon leadership to pronounce the United States as a worse threat than, or the cause of, any of the atrocities that have occurred in recent years in the name of what should only be referred to as Islamofacsism.

Panatanal, for the sake of the Democrat party, I certainly hope that if there had been a President Gore on September 11, 2001, that he would have given an order to shoot down any hijacked airliner that threatened Washington, D.C., and that he also would have ordered U.S. armed forces to lay waste to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But for the sake of the Republican party, I hope that your answer to that question is, "No, a hypothetical President Gore wouldn't have done any of those things. He would have called an international peace and reconciliation conference. In, say, Kyoto, Japan."

...then I am all for it.

This is why this President was elected. To appoint a Roberts, and an Alito, to the Supreme Court, and to appoint a Ted Olson to Justice. Don't like it? Get yourself a different President in 2008.

And isn't it funny how the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is cited by Glenn as a source of wisdom criticizing Judge Mukasey? But the Mukasey-supporting Fourth Circuit is "far right"?

I know very well how the Circuits are composed. I also know that your oracle-like Second Circuit split 2 to 1 on the Padilla case. And that the bare majority was Judge Beverly Pooler, a Hillary Clinton liberal and Clinton era appointee, and Judge Barrington D. ("Danny") Parker, who is a very interesting case. Parker is, I presume, a Democrat, who was appointed to the Federal Bench in the first instance by Clinton. Remarkably, he was appointed to the Circuit by President George W. Bush. (You remember him, don't you? The guy who only appoints right-wing ideolougues?)

The dissenter was Judge Richard Wesley, who is also a Bush appointee and a Republican, but who was ardently supported for nomination by, uh, Chuck Schumer, (D-Liberalism).

There, Glenn. You learned something today. You're welcome.

Elephantman:

I'm a little concerned by the nice things that Schumer and Glenn Greenwald say about Mukasey, but if Bill Kristol endorses Mukasey, then I'd support his nomination.

Thanks for the weekend illustration of how an authoritarian follower "thinks" -- "if Bill Kristol endorses Mukasey, then I'd support his nomination."

No need to think for yourself. If Bill Kristol says it, you follow.

And isn't it funny how the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is cited by Glenn as a source of wisdom criticizing Judge Mukasey? But the Mukasey-supporting Fourth Circuit is "far right"?

Court of appeals decisions are determined by three-judge panels. It is just fact that the three-judge panel chosen for that Fourth Circuit case was comprised of some of the further right judicial ideologues. Even right-wing legal advocates would say so.

Having said that, the notion that a U.S. President can't incarcerate U.S. citizens seized on U.S. soil without a trial isn't really a matter of whether someone believes in liberal or conservative ideology. It is a matter of whether someone believes in the basic American constitutional framework. That's why the administration made sure the Supreme Court wouldn't rule on that question.

-- GlennGreenwald

Wrong again, Glenn. It has nothing to do with Bill Kristol telling me what to think. ("Authoritarianism"? He's a magazine editor!) Before typing, I just happened to see Kristol on Fox, making a very thoughtful case that social-conservative issues are no longer of any pressing importance for the administration, and that FISA issues will be the major focus of the balance of the AG's time in office, whoever is appointed. Therefore, Mukasey is an even better pick than Ted Olson, to fulfill that mission. I tend to agree. Ted Olsosn was an attractive choice if for no other reason than that he appeared to infuriate Joe Conason. I was hoping that suffering through a year of Ted Olson as AG might shorten Joe's lifespan by some factor. But I am willing to give up that hope for the good of the country, which would clearly be served by a strong and solid defense of the Bush-era expansion of effective anti-terrorism tools under FISA.

JEB IN 2012!

Cindy Sheehan = heroic.

Right to Life = quasi-criminal.

Now, distinguish him from Cindy Sheehan.

Who could possibly know moree about "decadent perversity" phases?

It is absolutley correct to say that the linkage, in ANY way (in the same conversation, fer crissakes!), of the tasering of a self-promoting student at a John Kerry campus speech, to the Bush Administration, is lunacy. It is moonbat-level Bush-hatred. So naturally, Joe Conason and Chris Matthews would go there, as quickly as they could, without a single news-cycle's worth of delay.

I can only hope and pray that MoveOn will play a major role in making the Democrat nomination. Then, I'll know that the Democrats can lose.