Thank you. I appreciate your encouragement, and your kind words. And I want to add that I'm sorry for the abuse you suffered. I admire you for surmounting it.

We may be destined to label his behavior differently, but let me try to explain why I don't see him as "abusive." I don't see his behavior as either a willful desire to inflict pain or a desire to take advantage. I also don't see abuse here for the same reason I don't see a baby being abusive when it screams everytime it doesn't get what it wants. It's not a pleasant analogy to compare a man almost 30 to a helpless child. But up to this point in his life, that is exactly what he's been. And did he get that way on his own?

If his behavior can be defined as abusive, how is the mother not guilty of abuse herself? She's crippled him with her overprotective, soft approach. She's taugh him that words are meaningless, and though people say something, they don't follow through. She's molded his approach to life.

People around here seem to have little problem with the mother. It's "sure you need to kick him out, but we know you're doing the best you can, and you love him. You just don't know what to do." Why is the same gererosity not extended to the son? I suspect he doesn't want to use her, he doesn't want to be dependent. He just hasn't been given to tools to stand on his own, or made to see that he must develop those tools for himself. And when he's forced to confront that situation, he gets angry and yells. He gets, not abusive, but defensive.

How can someone raised in an environment where everything is always provided for, and in which he has always been encouraged to take the easiest road, suddenly realize "Oh gosh, this is all wrong. I've got to take care of myself and make my own life"? It's like expecting someone raised by white supremacists to turn around at 18 and join the NAACP. It's expecting him to embrace a sensibility utterly alien to what his mother seems to have planted in him. And, like a lot of people, he's scared of alien concepts.

I see these two people, mother and son, and flawed people who want to do their best, but have made very bad choices.

For the record, your typos don't bother me at all, and I haven't thought of you as the least bit spacey. Thanks for clarifying why you label the LW's son as you do. All I can say is, you've given me something to think about. And I appreciate that.

Anonymous,

Unless I'm confusing you with someone else, the way you led off with "Gen Xer's are always complaining about Boomers, but Boomers did live their own lives instead of mooching off parents" gave me an impression you were a Boomer. Sorry for mischaracterizing you.

I admire your ability to take care of yourself, and your refusal to let your parents know about, let alone shoulder, the burden. I speaks to an inner strength that I hope serves you throughout life, and that I'm struggling for in myself (like a muscle, I believe it's there, and the more I work it out, the bigger and more powerful it will get).

Yes, it's hard to be a twentysomething sometimes; but guess what? It is a lot worse for a lot of other people throughout the world. Compared to many many people, we've got it easy.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Let's look at the opening paragraph, which is the meat of the argumemt:

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Let's try to unravel this, shall we? First of all, the information seems to come from two former CIA officers. Well, if they are former CIA officers, how up to date would their intelligence be expected to be?

Secondly, their source seems to be the Iraqi foreign minister. It's hard to tell because Blumenthal isn't clear. Was the foreign minister the source, or is this what Bush decided in his own mind in order to ignore the information. If the latter, this points towards something serious. But if it's the former, well, how trustworthy is the foreign minister of the country you plan to wage war on? Isn't he likely to say whatever he needs to say to avoid war? I suspect if you interviewed the German foreign minister before WWII, he'd assure everyone that Jews weren't being detained or gassed. It's a meaninless assurance. How trustworthy is an official hired by, and a part of Hussein's politcal machine?

This whole article is ludicrous, the hot-air, empty content piece that Blumenthal has come to think represents journalism. Or editorialism. Or whatever he thinks he contributes to Salon. He contributes nothing.