What strikes me as implausible is how so few of these photos have trickled out into the press. I heard accounts of hundred, perhaps thousands of such photos taken by soldiers and traded like baseball cards. My understanding is that not only were photos taken at A.G. and other detention facilities, but in the field during raids and engagements. How is it that the press hasn't made ferreting out these pictures their top priority?

has begun to penetrate the Congressional races here locally in Arizona. Democratic primary contestants who began their bid with a 'stay the course' incrementalist approach are now turning to full and immediate withdrawal and "the Murtha plan" of over-the-horizon positioning and negotiated political solutions.

Of course, I won't consider the loss of Iraq a done deal until Republican canidates start adopting that position, and so far they largely remain in the 'we can't afford to lose' camp.

I always find it distressing and absurd when politicians bemoan that only so much of their agenda is politically possible, then proceed to do absolutely nothing to actually move the goal posts of possibility by spending their political capital. I am bemused by Congressional Democrats and their apologists who point out that only so much progress on ending the war can 'pragmatically' be made, and thus we must compromise and accomplish what little we can.

The political calculus they've summed is merely what currently is, not what might be. The only way to change that equation is to push the system beyond its tolerance through symbolic acts, changing the terms of debate, or direct action. It seems Democratic leaders are very distrustful of those who seek to change the political environment, and not terribly effective at doing any of this sort of political work themselves. They'll logroll with best of them, but they won't make legislative politics a real blood sport in the way the GOP does so well. This disconnect between many of our office-holders and our activist base is one of the great weaknesses of our party.

Even the harshest critics of Democratic anti-war activists can't point to a lack of commitment on their part. They have done massed demonstrations across the country, contacted their political representatives until they are blue in the face, and put their dollars where their hearts are. What is lacking is a commitment by MoveOn (whose job it is) and elected Democrats (whose job it is) to truly represent their foot soldiers. This agreement to compromise between MoveOn's leadership and the leadership of our elected Democrats was an utter failure to represent their constituencies. Perhaps they feel they know better, or are better placed to judge what is possible - or possibly they are just too limited in perspective to see beyond the beltway on this issue.

We don't need a Focus on the Family-type grassroots lobbying heavyweight on the left that tells us what to support. We need MoveOn to enable and cohere the sentiments of the grassroots and represent those views to those in power, no matter how unpopular, or 'unrealistic' those views may be. Pariser's move to cut Lee's Amendment out of the MoveOn dialog because it couldn't pass was a betrayal of the organization's mission to make yesterday's impossible, today's inevitable.

Many comments indicate that people don't see the point of this report. It is obvious that Bush lied, so what use is this further revelation? Historical accuracy is the point. We may know that Bush lied, but precisely the dimensions of his lies and what he actually knew are important subjects for journalist inquiry. We should applaud Blumenthal for continuing to chew on the subject like a dog with a favorite bone.

There is a clear difference between a President who goes to war with inadequate information about the threat posed by an enemy (which is what the right argues happened) and one who goes to war when the great weight of evidence suggests the absence of any credible threat (which is what really happened). The lack of any credible threat, and the repeated and conscious manufacturing of the appearance of a threat by this Administration, strongly indicate ulterior motives for the Iraq war that are still not clear today. We owe the future as complete a historical record as possible before time dims the memory of this tragic turn in our history.

The judgment of history is more important for the health of a national community than criminal convictions, even when heinous acts are committed. Give immunity only in exchange for the whole, absolute truth of this shameful chapter.