So, even if one believes that the Administration didn't knowingly or intentionally LIE to justify the invasion, I think their reckless disregard for any sober analysis should still be infuriating to any reasonable American citizen.

I think we can safely consider anyone who has no problem with the Bush Administration's "recklessly low" standard for justifying an invasion to be inherently UNREASONABLE.

And yes, the whole Valerie Plame scandal should dispel any notion that the Administration honestly believed that the Iraqi's had weapons of mass destruction. You don't pillory any counter-opinions when you're involved in a thorough policy analysis...

... (With the kind assistance of Tim Russert, whose demise is bound to generate at least a couple of days of sloppy, saccharine, thoroughly disgusting media coverage -- see the NYT front page already.)

Yeah, I was just going to say the same thing.

Didn't know the "Town Halls" were going to be on Fox News, before a crowd vetted by the McCain camp.

Turning down something like that isn't cowardly; it's akin to declining to fight a gang member, on his turf, unarmed, and showing up by yourself... not cowardly: PRUDENT.

As noted above, the front runner stands to lose a lot more in a debate. There's always a bit of a roll of the dice in a debate. Your adversary can make a point you weren't prepared for, the moderater can throw a zinger your way, you might sneeze and look awkward on TV...

But in this case, I sincerely doubt McCain could come close to even holding Barack's notes in an actual debate. The disparity in this regard is as wide as the Grand Canyon.

So I wonder exactly what the whole "Town Hall" concept would entail.

Given Barack's lead, as demonstrated in recent polls, I think it's safe to say more voters identify and trust him at this juncture. To hold some cushy "Town Hall" meeting where both candidates can agree on some issues and "put bi-partisanship behind them" would only benefit McCain: by moving closer to Obama, he could be seen as a more moderate, reasonable leader, rather than the War-Mongering Dinosaur from Arizona that he is.

Does this mean I can add you to the list of people who think Bush will declare martial (though he'll spell it marshall) law to stay in power?

I think he was implying that all the people currently seeking to extend executive power & limit the constitutional restraints on it, will be singing a different tune when President Obama lives in the White House.

As far as Bush declaring martial law... if he does that, it's civil war time. The decent men left in our military will be squaring off against the Neo-con politicians & Blackwater security. The rest of us will just have to hope the rest of the world sits idly by while we straighten ourselves out.

This is, of course, an absurd long stretch. I don't see it happening. Even the sleaziest among the neo-cons probably aren't ready for this. They made plenty of money through W. Bush's handouts for the Iraqi "Reconstruction," and are ready to retire and live the good life.

...was amusing. It starts off with typical ignorant and alarmist statements you'd expect:

What’s that sound? The thunder of left-wing lawyers and Gitmo detainees jumping up and down for joy at the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning. Brace yourselves. Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia warns that the ruling “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed” and concludes “The Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today. I dissent.”

Chief Justice John Roberts says the rule of law and the American people have lost out–and with this ruling, we “lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.”

There's something deeply unserious about anyone who can claim with a straight face that preserving one of our Constitution's CORE PRINCIPLES represents a loss for the "rule of law."

Then the piece calms down a bit, as Malkin struggles to grasp exactly what the ruling held, with a "uh, ok, now what exactly is going on here?" tone.

Jonathan Adler: “As I (super-quickly) skim Justice Kennedy’s opinion for the Court, it appears to hold that Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights, that these rights can only be denied through a valid suspension of habeas rights (under the Suspension Clause of the Constitution), that the procedures created by the Detainee Treatment Act were not an adequate substitute for habeas, and therefore Section 7 of the Military Commission Act is an unconstitutional suspension of the detainees’ habeas rights. I’m sure I (and others) will have more to say about this case in subsequent posts.”

What more could you say about that? "Uh, so it looks like this Constitution thing has something about preserving civil rights, or something." It almost sounds like Beavis and Butt-head are writing this. She then returns time and time again to Roberts' dissent... as though the reasoning behind the majority opinion is laughable and unworthy of any sort of serious discussion. Well, duh, they were, like not friendly to Bush, or something.

Is they sayin' prior to this here rulin, thems down in Louisiana was teachin' our childrens that they came from monkeys?