that which eludes his prose; style.

Love the way you got that semi-colon in there Proxy, babe.

Thank goodness you haven't submitted any samples of your own feuilletons to Salon. I'm sure your prose stylings would disemployss Glenn in no time flat.

Thanks for coming up with the facts on embassy security.

I posted that link about the Secret Service and Obama as part of my contention that Obama can, if elected, only survive by moving (to be very general) to the left. He will not be able to triangulate in any way that Clinton can- they won't have him. And he, in turn, can trust no-one who has not been vetted or is known to him.

Also, all the criminals and theo-cons installed currently working away at their craft can't go on under Obama- they won't trust him to cover for them and legally protect them. Would people waterboard for Obama? I doubt it.

So his best bet is to go in there and get all those people out, and into jail if that's where they should go.

Me, I think he should start by offering immunity to whistleblowers with evidence of criminality in the government for 60 days. Then all bets are off and everybody goes to jail.

My contention is that this is what he must do, to survive politically, and maybe just survive, and if he tries another strategy, he will be chewed up and spit out. That's my contention.

I mean, how would you like to take office wondering if you can trust the goddam Secret Service? How the hell can you do your job? I don't think these people will triangulate with him, and if he doesn't eliminate them, they will work against him day and night.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum says that "it's genuinely not clear to [him] whether this really amounts to anything serious," and that this "sounds more like a political misdemeanor than a felony."

Is that the same Kevin Drum who could not imagine the Bush Administration was lying about the WMDs? The Kevin Drum who still today says all serious people thought Saddan had them? That Kevin Drum? Yup, he's a damn prescient fellow, is Drum.

bucky, my lad, can you give us something to substantiate LWM's sockpuppetry?

Is this just a suprise surmise, or do you have proof, like in a pudding?

Cause I don't think we are talking about the same LWM. Are you talking about the one who signs LWM? Cause that's him.

So how's about it?

Thanks for responding.

Further, if you're not selling out to lobbyists, (possibly involving nudity -advance apologies to the nausea-prone...) blaming the New York Times, and furthering media consolidation, how can you face down Al Queda?

I think you have captured the thrust of McCain's campaign!

evil of Obama's fleet-footedness

So that's how he stayed out of the service!! Wait til Rush gets a hold of this!

1.We have to catch him with his pants down. Now that's an "outrage" that the Puritans - the base, will understand.

Bill Owen

2.my argument at a good sex scandal would hurt McCain more than a financial one.

Bill Owen

Hey Bill, how's ol' Capn. Smith doing? Spoken to Pocahantus lately? BTW, is that Cotton guy still around? Anyway, I hope things work out for you at Plymouth Rock.

And you don't have the slightest idea what the McCain scandal is about, do you?

* Russia is about to defy the UN and do an Iraq on Kosovo. Does anybody care, or shall this be the beginning of a new "let the rest of the world do what it wants" foreign policy?

Shooter242

1-800-GO-ARMY, Shooter. You, of all people, should be ready to take up the gauntlet, lest the rest of the world "do what it wants"!

Well, LWM you sound like you really want to kill those terrible others much like your lover Timberman.

Bucky, this is not the only blog LWM comments on. I know him as a commentor who is quick with the links and the facts, and yes, maybe a little too quick to take offense and trade insults. But not dishonest, in the way you describe. What's up?

Apart from dumping me for Timberman, what has he done?

You, of all people, should know something about extra-legal acts and their inevitable recompenses, both spiritual and temporal!

Excellent comment! But the implication seems to be: even if we can eventually make the telecoms liable for violating the law, the resultant penalties and judgements will be paid by the taxpayers themselves; the telecos are imdemnified!

I believe it was McConnel who said, or words to the effect that the telecoms would be ruined by a judgement against them. (I believe you'll find that at TPM) Anotherwords, if it was a class action suit, the class would be so big that any kind of recompense for the information stolen would bankrupt the companies. But if the telecos are indemnified, we are only penalising ourselves. Can you indemnify someone for an illegal act? That doesn't seem like a good idea.