I just listened to Glenn's appearance on Moyers in pod cast form. I thought he was fantastic. I did not get the feeling that the previous poster did at all about access.

Two questions came up in my mind that were provoked by the excellent conversation.

1) What about signing statements? This practice that had been around a long time seems to undermine rule of law. I would have liked to hear a bit more about that.

2) It seems to me that Presidential power is deliberately left vague at some points in the Constitution. Many Presidents have ignored what would have been current law by declaring a state of emergency, or Executive Privilege. I think this vagueness is put in place on purpose. My question is: how to you stop a President from taking advantage of that vagueness without doing away with it? Clearly most would agree that President Bush and his administration went far over the line in taking advantage of that vagueness. However, we can also say that many contemporaries of Lincoln would have said the same thing. I would love to hear what Glenn thinks about how to deal with the 'wiggle room' I think is inherent in the Constitution. While the Supreme Court did seem to severely limit Executive Privilege with United States v. Nixon, it doesn't seem to me they have completely addressed this constitutional issue. Thanks for the great broadcast.

Thank god these idiots are almost out of office. It's going to be fun watching the sad/hysterical/reality-deprived right wing of the repugs drive further and further off the deep end. Bye-bye silly strange people... you are destined to be relegated to the scrap heap that comprises the horrors of history.

Maybe the trend of bushlessness was a form of unconscious protest against the current occupant of the White House. Now that he's going, it's coming back!

Bush is dead! Long live the BUSH!

Reminds me of the weird uncle who gets invited to thanksgiving but you NEVER leave him alone with the kids...

@ondelette

A review of what we did is an excellent idea.

I also agree with your observations about Steve Coll's book and the cold war. A heightened sense of cultural sensitivity will go a very long way to better policy and relations.

The 'brand new' aspect though I think is not so much in the enemy... but in what new technology can bring. I think that things are different because of that. One man with a weapon.

The internet has changed things too. Very small groups of people can have a bigger impact because of the internet. Maybe you are right, and these new developments do not warrant a review. It is worth thinking about.

yes... look at everything.

My opinion on torture... I want to punch the guy out, providing of course I KNEW he was the bad guy...but that's not a policy.

What US policy should be is something else. Is making a threat against someone torture? Does it cross the line when you get physical? Is shining a light in someones eyes when you question them torture? What would be the circumstances when any of this could be permissible.

Maybe the conclusion would be... any torture under any circumstance is wrong. That may be. What I think could happen is the US will publicly disavow torture... but still practice some nasty things in secret. To me this is almost worse! I say whatever we do... whatever we decide.. let's do it in the open... and confront it. I think the world has changed... we need to define how... and what we should do because of that. Bush USED that change to do terrible things. Ignoring the issue and pretending it was all politics is wrong too.

I already said I thought rendition is a good idea.

What I meant about certitude was your faith in the law.

You know... getting back to it all... I was asking do we need to confront this again? Now that Bush is gone (or at least going)... his policies are disgraced... do we need a new review? This was what I was trying to get at.

Some changes Bush made will be kept. Inter-agency cooperation I'm sure is thought of as a good idea and should be continued.

I would say I would not be against extradition. Even if it violated international law.

So... should there be a review about EVERYTHING... including torture... and what IS torture... and what would be permissible?

So... you would be against rendition under any circumstance?

"Thank you. Yes, it's a good book. No it does not say that U.S. observance of the rule of law was instrumental in recruiting terrorists. Actually, it describes a large U.S. intelligence screw up over 22 years. It does not give pretext for torture."

I seem to remember a quote about US weakness in reference to law... sorry I don't have the book here. The main thrust of it is as you say. Could I be thinking of 'The Looming Tower'? Maybe...

@PDA... who says anything about perfect safety? Don't you think that we should be thinking about what sorts of plans terrorists could be plotting against the US... and what the best way to confront those threats is? President Elect Obama has said there are areas of security... one of them being the Ports... he is not happy with.

Guess there's a reason never to confess in public!

"No-one has a monopoly on outrage over 9/11, slancio103"

No, of course not. I was merely pointing out these feelings were for personal reasons... not claiming to be the only one.

You are right of course. I agree with all of your points at the end of your post.

But why do I have a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach that it won't be enough? Your certitude is enviable.