The entire war in Iraq was "bipartisan," of course. The Patriot Act was "bipartisan." The telecom immunity bill was "bipartisan." The confirmations of Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito were "bipartisan." I am so relieved that we're all together on "bipartisanship."

So? You've been here longer than me and are therefore aware that this "bipartisanship" stuff is so much smoke and mirrors flogged by the "elite" to evade responsibility. Why do you harp on this when few, if any, here have ever defended Democrats and their participation in this?

Put very simply, I supported Bush because he did what he thought necessary to protect the country. That's my truth.

How could you possibly know this?

Regarding datamining, wiretapping, and torture, I consistently hear that the American tradition was somehow above that. What a crock. We have used every possible avenue for advantage in every war we participated in.

It is true, no doubt, that these things have been used in the past, but that doesn't make it right or even effective. Much has been written regarding the ineffectiveness of torture (apart from its morality), and datamining and wiretapping, when used as a vacuum, merely make it all the more difficult to effectively capture the kind of information that would be valuable (and it also functions as a cheap and ineffective way of gathering intelligence--as opposed to human intelligence). And that is apart from the constitutionality of such policies.

The part I find amazing about all this is the drive by the left to extend the war in Afghanistan. Every argument against Iraq applies to Afghanistan, yet off we go. The incredulity you have for Iraq, I have for this.

I don't believe this myself and as there's no monolithic "left," this argument is pretty insubstantial. Again, I want to mention the use of effective intelligence (the human sort), and the use of various tools available to us, including--to name but one--appropriately targeted economic aid (i.e., infrastructure-related).

What may be clearly appropriate to you, isn't to others. Others include the Supreme Court, which is where prosecutions would end because prosecutions will be a Constitutional crisis of biblical proportions. Is that really what you want? Or would you rather move forward with Obama into an era fraught with possibility?

I bold this last because it seems to me an acknowledgment by you that crimes have indeed been committed. I believe this nation is stronger than you give it credit for. Perhaps I'm wrong, but to simply treat these crimes as "policy disagreements" (which seems to be the popular term) is to guarantee they'll happen again. And again. And again.

Thanks for your response to me.

Damned fine comment.

Maybe we should ask ourselves whether we would celebrate that brave man's act had it involved a President whose ideology more closely resembled our's. It bothers me that I'm having a hard time answering that question since it demonstrates a loss of respect for me personally. Bush, I am sad to say, still represents me simply because the Constitution says he does. Mixed emotions are a bitch.

I'd like to think that "a President whose ideology more closely resembled" ours wouldn't necessitate a shoe-throwing to begin with. I agree--sorry to say--that Bush does represent all of us in accordance with the Constitution. However, we've remedied that and I hope we can successfully strive (doubt always in mind) to ensure such a "person" never occupies the office again. I must maintain hope.

I've been told in no uncertain terms by a mainstream Marvel Comics editor (Tom Brevoort) that I "committed career suicide" when I spoke up about questionable hiring practices by the maninstream comic book companies. After losing my house and primariy relationship from lack of work, and after radically downsizing my life, I've been happy to find that there is indeed career life outside of the mainstream comics companies for a man of my talents.

Wow. I salute you for following your beliefs/ethics in that situation (whatever the particulars were). You are a shoe-thrower (seriously--no "irony"-- which, I think, is the recent term around here).

I don't know about you, but I have a headache from beating my metaphorical head against a metaphorical wall: there were no crimes!

Repeat that again and again to make it true. And pass the Advil.

At the core of my being I have a spark that says "everyone's redeemable." That's my religious upbringing. I'm a fool, I know, but that won't come as a surprise to anyone here. I cross my fingers, hope for the best and, from time to time, pray (and please ignore the confused pagan/orthodox references).

This is me, for better or worse.

Now, whether it's a politically wise move for Obama to undertake is another question. I'm on record here as saying I'm not sure he can afford the political capital.

Which makes you more astute than Glenn and most of the other commentors. This is the crux of the whole issue, and why politics is the art of the possible. Obama won't shoot himself in the foot by inciting political civil war. There's no upside. All controversy will become policy differences. In short, there are no crimes.

"Crimes" meaning, what, policy differences? That is one soul-less statement. This is utter bullshit and you know it. I think maybe bamage is right; I ought to simply ignore such soul-less-ness and be done with it. New oath from Timothy3: I will endeavor to engage only with those worthy of engagement. (Now if only I can remember my new oath going forward)

Sacred. Fool/Sage. Idiot/Tim3. Timothy3. bodi.

I think I'm all of these (if we re-arrange 'sacred' for 'scared' and if by 'sage' you mean the herb; the rest of it is okay).