I just finished reading the Feb. 25 column by Byron Calame in the NYT. I was stunned at the calm acceptance by Mr. Calame of Mr. Gordon's [and his enabling, hidden editors] unquestioning repetition of the earlier WMD mistakes. I kept reading about some type of scoop by Mr. Gordon. Scoop? What scoop? Is this what passes for a scoop these days? There is also no mention of the strategic placing of Mr. Gordon's articles, or the rabid headline that accompanied the articles. Here are a few suggested headlines [just as accurate]:

"US Charges not Backed by Evidence"

"Iran Refutes Wild US Claims"

"Anonymous US Officials Spin War Fantasies"

It is sad indeed how far a once great newspaper has sunk.

Richard Stanczak, Corunna, Ontario, Canada

Glenn, Thanks to your post I decided to check out the Time Swampland site. It is awash, nay, flooded with reports of the crowning of John "The Good" McCain. The comments section is full [100% when I looked] with derisive, incredulous, remarks from their registered readers.

Seems to be a slight disconnect between the speakers and the audience.

I read with interest your latest post. Here in Canada we face the same problem. The Liberals and Conservative parties [our normal governing parties] are desperately trying to avoid a national debate on our NATO mission in Afghanistan. It is considered to be 'too divisive' for Canada. Our 'national flagship' newspaper [The Globe and Mail] has already headlined that 'the Afghan debate gets ugly'. Our pundits are calling for a bipartisan agreement that we extend our mission beyond 2009.

All this to avoid an election on this issue.

Sound familiar?

We have other [mostly socialist] parties that are against extending the mission, but they are marginalized [think Ron Paul] and deemed not serious.

We are more alike than either of us think. Good luck.

Glenn, Great post as usual. What interested me most about Ms. Slaughter's "Candidate Iraq Judgment Meter" was limiting the withdrawal of American soldiers to the number which could still ensure that the original four goals of the invasion could be accomplished.

Isn't it logical that if those conditions are not possible by military force, that in effect no withdrawal of soldiers is possible?

It seems to me that her formula would actually encourage an increase in soldiers.

Lets see, who might that get the highest score on her CIJM??

SURPRISE!

Glenn and faithful Salon readers;

I have it from good authority, who unfortunately cannot be named, within the Military, that in fact al Qaeda, the Taliban, Syria, and North Korea are also part of this nefarious plot.

My frustrated source let it be known that the full extent of the conspiracy was not released because, and I quote him/her, "it just would not be believable!"

Wowzers! I submitted this story to the Times, but was told it probably would not be published as my source and I do not have the 'track record' that Mr. Gordon and his sources have.

The last season of The West Wing is playing on a cable station I get [Canadian Learning Televison] and it is eerily similar to this years events. Including a situation in central Asia.

What struck me though, was the automatic assumption that US forces were needed [and would be sent]in that incident. Has it become so much a part of the US mindset that reflexively all foreign policy problems need a military response?

Is it not possible to have a civilized discussion of your country's dependance on military force to resolve foreign policy issues? That would include a review of NATO, all your overseas military bases, and the huge amount of money that you continually put into your military.

We here in Canada seem to be tilting towards the interventionist agenda too, for reasons that our governments refuse to discuss.

Unfortunately, negativity and personal attacks are pretty much required in any political contest. I tend to agree with you that waiting until too late in the campaign to go after a candidate, especially if you are trying to override an earlier 'accepted' narrative, is difficult and smacks of desperation. Calling the Republicans and McCain obstructionist, big spenders, incompetent, corrupt, and power hungry is easily backed by the facts and should not be perceived as personal attacks. There should be no fear from the Democrats in being aggressive about this history. Highlighting McCain's trigger temper, ignorance, bluster, and his current pampered lifestyle is slightly trickier but no less important.

As a Canadian who cares about the future, I wish you the best of luck.

Perhaps this is a sign of my own ignorance, or the sheer one sided nature of political reporting, but who are these liberals that should be key parts of the Obama cabinet?

As you have highlighted Glenn, the change that Americans wanted and voted for is competent government. As a Canadian, I have a very different view of the purpose and performance of government than seems prevalent in the US. The biggest challenge facing your country is to undo the damage Reagan and W Bush have done to the perception and practice of responsible and competent government.

It should be obvious by now that the right never admits an error. The narrative is all important and in the view of the proponents, is always correct. Notwithstanding facts, polls, election results, etc.

Don't get me wrong, it is still essential to expose the falsehoods and hypocrisies wherever and whenever they occur to embarrass and correct the right wing loudspeakers. Over time, I have faith that the level of political discourse will rise.