Examine the source of the funding for these "serious scholars" advocating for needless and ultimately counter-productive imperial adventures and I suspect you'll find defense contractors.

Do these "serious scholars" even believe their own foreign-policy pronouncements any more, or are they just paid by the page/minute of airtime?

The most pathetic aspect (other than for the useless loss in blood and treasure) is how easily these "serious scholars" have been out-thought and out-maneuvered by the Iranian mullahs and guys hiding in caves in the mountains of Afghanistan.

HACK.

After all of the Bush regime's lies, stonewalling, and hostility to any form of congressional oversight, Wittes' presumption of a benign justification for Bush's illegal domestic surveillance is hopelessly naive at best.

Rather than granting the telecoms a retroactive amnesty, they should be considered co-conspirators for violating FISA.

It's about money folks. Money buys the M$M -- and I'm not talking commercials/ads.

Lobby shops spread the cash and -- presto -- favorable articles and reports begin magically appearing. This explains not only the uncritical rush to war in Iraq, but the "elections" of George W. Bush.

This isn't tinfoil-hat territory any more. Our democracy can't survive this level of corruption in our news media.

Once again, Glenn has done more journalistic heavy lifting than any 100 M$M reporters and pundits.

And Bush could name his dog Barney Attorney General for all the difference it would make. Other than for the improvement over Gonzo, it wouldn't change a thing.

Whomever Bush nominates (recess or otherwise), it will just be more lies, obfuscation and stonewalling to cover this regime's criminality and incompetence.

Based on historical precedent and human psychology, it's wise to assume:

1) A confrontational US policy towards Iran will only strengthen the rule of the theocratic hard-liners, and increase the longevity of that regime

2) A US attack on Iran would guarantee Iranian reaction in one or more of the following ways:

a) Attacks on US assets in Iraq

b) Closure of the Straits of Hormuz and destabilization of worldwide oil supplies causing global economic disruption

c) Terrorist reprisals in the USA

Even if Iran's nuclear program was successfully destroyed, the process would have to be repeated. An unprovoked American attack would spur a redoubled effort by Iranians to develop nuclear weapons -- and justifiably so. And payback is a bitch.

In light of inevitable Iranian responses which would ultimately be more harmful to US interests than any putative reasons for a US attack, one could only assume that any attack on Iran would be based not on rational geopolitical motives, but apparently for theological reasons.

Israel must be preserved so that Jesus may return. Iran is a threat to Israel. Therefore, Iran must be destroyed.

* Craig would be portrayed as a "victim" of some childhood abuse and thus unable to control his impulses.

* Republicans would rally-round in support of Craig and his family in this "difficult time."

* Liberals, Hollywood and the "gay lifestyle" would ultimately be blamed.

* Craig would enter Celebrehab and presto, 3-weeks later emerge "cured," ending the story.

But as it is, Idaho is a Red State with a GOP governor, so Craig will be cast off as soon as possible, to hopefully fade from the voters' memory before the 2008 elections.

Dumping the first wife for a younger, richer wife? Hey, that's Republican "family values."

Shooter seems to be short-circuiting over these "values" issues: McCain is a Republican (must defend!), yet was a cad (must condemn!); Craig is a Republican (must defend!), yet homosexual (must condemn!), etc.

Cognitive dissonance is the price to be paid by today's Republicans.

We've known since the leak of the so-called Downing Street memos that US intelligence was being "fixed" to support Bush's Iraq war policy -- as opposed to the more rational methodology of letting policy be influenced by the intelligence.

The ever-shifting justifications for this misbegotten war and occupation only serves to hide the fact that the true reasons for it were simply for domestic US political advantage -- and of course, the oil.

All of the perpetrators of this disaster should be sent to The Hague for justice.

or "The 82nd Chairborne."

My apologies if these have already been offered. I don't think I've ever seen so many responses to a GG essay (no time to go through them all).

Greenwald continues to do the work that the M$M should be doing, and is now picking-up the slack for the psychiatric profession as well.

The Bush regime's Iraq adventure was doomed to failure simply due to its inherent incoherence.

Why was it that the US had to invade and occupy Iraq?

* WMDs? Nope. UN weapons inspectors were on the ground and given free access but found nothing -- until they were told to flee before our bombing campaign began.

* The terrorist threat? No, based on that rationale, an attack on Saudi Arabia would be far more justifiable.

* The tyranny of Saddam Hussein? I suspect the vast majority of Iraqis would prefer Saddam's stability to the chaos we have unleashed (at least the electricity worked 24/7 then and people didn't have to worry about being blown-up when going to the market).

The fact that Bush followers can't face is that the war and subsequent occupation was simply a strategy designed for domestic political advantage in the 2002 and 2004 elections. For the Mayberry Machiavellis, Iraq was to be a "cake walk" that would result in a "permanent Republican majority."

Now that reality has proved them so horribly wrong, the current strategy of the Bush regime is to simply stall, and leave this debacle to be resolved by the next administration -- who will be demagogued for "losing Iraq" by the same people who got us into that disaster.