Ah, so Libertarians first have us determine what the "common civic values" should be, and of course this would have to be codified by the government for enforcement, and then examine immigrants to see who is "overtly hostile to said values"

Yes, anyone who is overtly hostile to the Bill of Rights and associated with violent organizations that are also hostile to it, has no right to become U.S. citizens. American values -- the ones Glenn and most here spend time defending -- are important. To become naturalized, would-be citizens must pass a civics exam and swear fidelity to the Constitution. Anyone who would do that cynically, as a background check would possibly indicate, need not apply.

We do not owe citizenship to those who do not accept our fundamental political order and its liberties, and especially if they have known associations with violent groups.

You heard her. All you neocons and loyal Bushies: OUT!

If you are speaking of those who are already citizens, can't do that. I'm addressing the criteria by which we permit immigrants to become citizens or to be legal residents. Nobody is entitled to that. I'm very pro-immigration, but not by people who are diametrically opposed to our core (read, BoR) political values, and especially if they have been associated with violent groups.

shooter's syllogism:

1) All Arabs would kill Jews

2) The US is killing Arabs in Iraq

3) Therefore, the US is saving the Jews from the Arabs

And never mind that, as Glenn details in his latest book, there are some 25,000 Iranian Jews living unmolested and practicing their faith in Iran. A Jew even holds a seat in its parliament.

Cases can and have been won or lost right at that point. Given how quickly they rendered a verdict, and that bizarre red, white and blue clothing display, I'd say that happened in the Padilla trial.

This revision is false -- and bona fide proponents of American interests are and were against war on Iraq because of that falsity. Even an amoral, Realpolitik assessment of American interests reveals this. Our national interest was served by pursuing Usama bin Laden into the Afghanistan-Pakistan border regions. It was grossly damaged by diverting men and attention into Iraq prior to destroying him, his organization, and the Taliban. A military invasion of the Arab world was never in our interests.

Thank you for articulating so well what I lacked time to post about yesterday, or today for that matter. Of everything in that Drezner diatribe, his vacuous and wholly wrong re-writing of Glenn's point was the most annoying aspect, at least for me.

Yet motivated by partisan concerns over the 2008 elections, the new speaker is following President Bush around like a sheep while he solidifies an imperial presidency and diminishes the Congress into irrelevancy. Just look at the latest ACLU advertisement targeting Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The only thing Pelosi has retained for the Congress is small-minded earmarks to attract political contributions.

If Pelosi persists in her imperious, mean-spirited, and myopic thinking in disregard of her oath to support and defend the Constitution, members of the House should replace her with Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.

According to public opinion polling, the percentage of voters supporting the impeachments of both President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are now approximately 45 and 54 percent, respectively. Most Americans instinctively feel the president is an untrustworthy steward of the Constitution's checks and balances because, among other things, he flouts laws, prohibits White House aides from testifying before Congress, consistently defends an attorney general who is an inveterate liar, and detains citizens and noncitizens indefinitely as enemy combatants on his say-so alone.

http://www.slate.com/id/2172547

See what Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste -- a lifelong conservative Republican -- has to say about that. This is an Op-Ed that neither the WSJ nor WashTimes would publish, so he turned to Think Progress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/22/batiste-conservatives/

Had you actually read what you posted (pasted) previously, you would have known that Sistani is Shia, not Sunni. Instead, you contradicted yourself in a single post when it usually takes you two, at minimum, to do that.

Seriously, how can anyone following the debacle in Iraq NOT know that? If it was a brain fart or typo, he should say so -- we all have them. Claiming it as a "grammatical" error is equally stoopid.

But he apparently doesn't know any better in either case. Reasons #1,973 and #1,974 to ignore him.

is investigating any of the complaints that I'm sure have poured in, and looking at trifles such as lying to Congress, I wonder if that has anything to do with this turn of events?

Now that [you Glenn are] making all that moolah, how about loaning me a couple hundred thou so Mona and I can run off to some nice tropical island and live in peace and harmony.

Luv ya hon, but I just received same from Russelle Crowe -- a daily reader of my blog and ardent fan -- and, well, a girl's gotta do what a girl's gotta do. We will be spending all of our time discussing drug policy reform, fiscal issues and the Middle East situation, and then drafting a white paper. But after that month (October), I am available to you if Glenn still wants to foot the bill, with all this lucre the two major parties are sending his oh-so-corrupt way.