I agree there were legitimate and reasonable grounds to enter Afghanistan for the limited purpose of disrupting the Taliban and terrorist training camps of whatever stripe. That is a far cry from suggesting our invasion of Iraq was warranted.

But as near as I can tell Afghanistan is still largely lawless unless you count whatever capacity we have to enforce law and order. Seems very limited and diminishing by the day. The place is the graveyard of empires for a reason.

And regarding another post--you made the statement that America's "challenges" from our inception as a State were somewhat congruent with those of today and cited the indiginous peoples of North America as one of those challenges. Do you consider our forefathers conquest of large parts of North America accomplished through the near extermination of the indiginous peoples as congruent to the challenges (criminal conspiracy) we face today? And if so in what way(s)?

I don't see them as at all analogous unless you think we should be in the business of conquest. Oh wait we still are in the that business we just cloak it in different language and make sure we find some group within another nation state to align with and then call it all good and legitimate.

And regarding adequate "justifications" for our military involvement in other countries, do you think a state of lawlessness and a degree of human suffering is sufficient justification for military involvement and if so could you delineate the boundaries of the necessary degree of lawlessness and suffering. Seems to me those are nice ideals but that the real underlying calculus isn't humanitarian do-gooding but rather economic hegemony.

I'm not sure anyone will agree, but my guess is that Bill will play some sort of unofficial role as well. IMHO, if the Clinton's help forge some sort of lasting peace in the Middle East that's historically way bigger than anything either of them has ever accomplished in their political lives (including the presidency) or ever will. Talk about burnishing your historical cred, Monica who, health care what.

Seriously, what could be bigger and change the course of "modern" history more? I think I'm leaning towards GG's take on this. Makes sense.

If the main stream media would just front page what is already known, for a month, it might do the trick. But that's never going to happen. Even if the Leahy-Whitehouse commission gets legs hold onto your seat for the duplicitous stenographic bizarro world spin and commentary that's going to come catapulting over the airwaves. People will have to watch it for themselves daily otherwise they'll turn into some sort of affirmation that "torture is good and necessary" and Cheney and Bush are heroes for making "touch calls".

Inhumanity is not an option.

Inhumanity has always been an option. Historically there's been a long list of those who have chosen it.

Question is will we continue to allow it to be an option or will we help forge a coalition that says it can no longer be and that those who choose it will face serious consequences (including holding ourselves accountable in some meaningful way for engaging in it or permitting it).

What's a "land line?" Kidding. As far as truthiness/beltway orthodoxy losing its luster it's still a mixed bag. Takes vigilence and people with a big enough box to stand on like GG, and an audience big enough to catapult the counter-reality into the public consciousness, to effectively change perceptions. Otherwise were just ineffectual lost souls whistling in the dark.

But I'm hopeful as well. (do I have to pay a royalty for infringing on your trademarked Hope?--cause I'm broke, but I could pay in spare cat toys only slightly used)

Bananas? Oh you said "buffoons". Tiny cars and clown horns? You're right though, buffoons, particularly scared lazy potentially complicit ones are extremely tough to motivate to do anything but cover their own arses. You would think or hope that of 435 "human beings" in the House and 100 in the Senate, a paltry 10% would possess that elusive though admirable human quality of "integrity" or at the very least the awareness that equal application of the "rule of law" is more important to social harmony than their finite political careers. But maybe that's asking too much of the silver spoon set. "It's oh so droll dontchya know when the little people and the DFHs start agitating for us to do our jobs. How gauche! Don't they know by now the rules only apply to the surfs not to the blue bloods."

Did you really write that paragraph? I'm impressed. Didn't seem on quick perusal to have any typos or bad syntax. Was properly surly, appropriate style and somewhat relevant.

Hey everybody don't let it be said NCLB isn't edumacating our chillens with good learnin' skills.

That was a neat trick how you and 2 for 2 posted one right after the other. Must be easy when your laptops are open sitting side by side in the golf cart, grandma's basement, or the cubicle at the call center. Keep up the excellent work because it looks like bernbart finally went on vacation.

Maybe it took a nosedive at the "we don't torture" statement because enough people, as evidenced by polls, have or are willing to admit to themselves the truth . . . that lots of people were tortured in our names . . . and when Obama says "we don't" the people don't believe him. The 28% dead enders believe torture is justifiable and love authoritarians--it's who they are and will not change. We'll see about the rest of our countrymen.