"Or is the idea that because Israel is justified in the mission itself, then the number of Palestinian civilian deaths is irrelevant -- i.e., Israel should do what it thinks it needs to do and, provided it exercises some form of "restraint," then it is justified regardless of how many innocent human beings (Palestinians) die as a result?"-Glenn

In the heart and mind of every faith-rationalized, Biblically-energized follower there is not only ample fuel for more of the same campaigns of terror--there is a mandate and promotion to shed blood of the non-judaic infidel.

It's their and our birthright claim many such references to ancient scripture within many evangelical circles.

The faithful are offended and deny that they follow a traditional basis of fighting because god says,--"thus it is written"--but it's zealotry will eventually blot out all infidels and "believers" alike.

It's not the faith-rationalized system we lament; as much as the debauchery and violence that it accomplishes.

As I watched GS with the rightest panel on "This Week", I noted the moderate-right leaning panel--not a liberal or progressive among them. Newt, Noonan, Wills and Freidman are what's considered balanced commentary now.

It was mentioned by Freidman that we were not attacked since 9-11, so Americans should keep Obama's feet to the fire and keep reminding him that he and GWB promised and consider that their most important mission as President.

The underlying notion after they had that discussion seemed to say--careful, you soft on terror types or you Obama folks will be held accountable should the homeland come under attack now that Bush is gone.

"So what's the justification for Obama's inflammatory and obviously consequential (though seemingly baseless) claim on national television that the Iranians "are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race" when the consensus of American intelligence agencies is that they are not doing so?"-Glenn

One can't help but feel uneasy with what appears to be compliance on various fronts: not holding Bush Admin accountable, caving in to certain hawks on Iran threat, telecom immunity, and corporate/military appointees to cabinet and other Bush enabling stances.

As you pointed out many times--the proof is in the pudding, once Obama takes the reigns.

Still, I do get suspicious and queasy every time it appears Obama is giving away the store?

The neophyte--Barack may have seen the stark reality of power in the hands of forces inside the White House and military to which he is obliged--or else.

O.K., maybe I'm being too hasty in prejudging what Obama's intentions are once in office.

Bush promised all sorts of things before taking office in 2001.

He would be a uniter, he would respect the sovereignty of other nations/no preemptive war crap, no nation building, and the rest of sewage spilt forth.

Now we have some high-minded promises, proposals and pragmatisms spewing forth peculiar to what Obama campaigned on. Will the new Admin deliver what seems endemic to all politicians--

promise high, equivocate and surprise the electorate, but be the President your king-makers selected you to be?

I'm for change, too, but change I can rely on. (says Y. Berra) not.

"Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those who decide that it's best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored. It's always better -- far better -- for a politician to know that he's being scrutinized closely and will be praised and supported only when his actions warrant that, and will be criticized and opposed when they don't."

Of course, Bush never bent to political pressure where it really mattered.

Sickening, it was yesterday to hear a man weave, grimace and pontificate about what most sane people would reflect upon as eight years of fear-mongering and lies.

When Bush made any decision that affected the economy, military, environment, health care, etc., etc., it was always with the most cynical pandering. The least powerful in their attempt to change his mind were continually dismissed as leftist traitors.

Bush never misled the thinking, aware American people that he was other than a partisan, rich, interloper who thought of himself, first.

The rewriting of history to paint him as a compassionate man because of an African Aids program will not suffice in reforming his character or morality.

"Of course, Bush never bent to political pressure where it really mattered."--me

Yes, I recognize your point. My "never" is in context of my own priorities during his term.

Though a bit over the top in my "really mattered", most would agree that the two wars, torture and habeas corpus were political issues that really matter (among many others that Bush showed defiance).

"Pressure is more effective when it comes from those who usually support you."

Think of the foolish posture Bush took from day one. He was selected by a thin majority of the SC (stop the count), and lost the popular vote by at least 600,000-- yet this arrogant man ran the country like he slid into home base.

If any President wanted to have the majority voters support would he ignore so many? To Bush, it didn't matter--because they were not necessary to fulfill his corporate/military-for- profit agenda.

Right, it demonstrates how very corporatized the country/government has become. No president really need be pressurized by any Congress, party or significant populace.

Bush proved beyond all doubt that political pressure rests in the money/lobby machine--the votes are window dressing and sometimes, just a nuisance.