Here, let me try this again. Maybe I was just being unclear. And maybe Taste of Death Publishing Company is right--and they'll stick with this whole "terrorists in America like calling their mothers in Iraq" story. Then Glenn would definitely have more room to drill--because why the hell are we finding out about it now? What the hell?

My interpretation is as follows:

[Officials] "shouldn't need a warrant when somebody picks up the phone in Iraq and calls somebody in the United States because that's the (hypothetical) call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the (hypothetical) call that we didn't know about. We knew that there has (sic) been a (the same hypothetical) call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it (the same hypothetical call) came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went."

Does that help at all?

Then I'm very glad that they went so far as to state overtly that this was a specific incident, because as you point out in the post, there's quite a few questions that result from this.

My intent was not to condone anything that Mukasey said, but rather to explain how I would expect him to react to a defense (this was before I knew about the DOJ response to his statement...need to read more first, then write responses).

Even still, re-reading Mukasey's statement, it sure seems like it's a very carefully calculated and disingenuous piece, however you interpret it. Hell, the mere fact that there could be these interpretations should tell us a lot! He's going for effect and emotion, not for conveying information. That right there is something to distrust on general principles.

But in light of your second point in your latest post--well, there's no other conclusion to reach but that Mukasey is lying. How else to interpret DOJ claims that the call was referenced in the 9/11 Commission report, when it was NOT?

Again, this is just an attempt to expand Presidential powers, and nothing more. Clearly, it has nothing to do with legal constraints to intelligence gathering, etc.

I'm glad you're out in front, Glenn, and I hope that you can make this blow up a bit bigger. It deserves much more media attention.

I'm sick and tired of hearing about how this candidate or that candidate is "more qualified" to run for / hold the office of President.

What, pray tell, are the qualifications?

If we look to Article 2 of the Constitution, a candidate must:

-be a natural-born citizen of the United States;

-be at least thirty-five years old;

-have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

If you look at, say, the last fucking idiot to take office, well, pretty much any mouth-breathing Ritalin-eater would look overqualified in comparison.

If by "qualified," you mean that politically they would seem more or less palatable, that's a different story. But let's not pretend that we're scanning resumes here and comparing them against each other, because we shouldn't.

McCain's experience is frequently at odds with his voting record (how does a P.O.W. condone torture, anyway?). In fact, it could be demonstrated that most candidates' voting actions and policy positions, and their touted experience are rarely in perfect accord. And that's because most people are like that. A candidate's resume doesn't really tell the world very much about him or her (any more than it does when hiring someone for a normal white collar job), and it's high time to quit pretending that it does.

There's some evidence (which I can't find at the moment) that rear-facing seats are safer in the event of a crash (well, a crash that leaves the airframe intact enough that your seat survives, anyway).

Various planes have had them over the years, but it's not common at all anymore. I'm curious...why is that?

Oh, my other (related) suggestion will be unpopular: ban frequent-flyer programs. Business class is full of people who got their tickets or upgrades using frequent flyer miles; you should get the seat you paid for, no more, no less; the economics of air travel are horribly distorted - for passengers and airlines - by frequent-flyer programs. Removing them would make it clear to airlines how much people actually valued - in dollar terms - a business class seat.

As a frequent flyer myself, I can kind of see the idea of this, especially when there's literally no difference between "first class" and "coach class" on the regional airlines most airlines partner up with. Basically, I get to sit in the first few rows, so I'm first on and off the plane. That's valuable to me, since every minute I spend on an airplane is a minute I'm not spending doing something else more enjoyable (like getting root canals).

But there should maybe be some kind of accomodation for "experienced" flyers vs. "total newbies." I'm so tired of watching crazy people think the laws of physics will miraculously adjust themselves to allow that huge bag into that tiny overhead compartment.

True story: on my flight yesterday, a girl runs up the stairs, and the air hostess greets her. She looks puzzled for a moment, and asks her, "So...I'm in 4C. Where is that?"

And the patient hostess doesn't bat an eye. "4th row down, on your left."

"Oh, thanks."

Is it really that hard to find a numbered row on a small commuter plane that you need to ask for directions?