So what are our virtues? I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I really want to know from you, Glenn, what our virtues are as you see them. Because those that I look to are fading fast, and they have been since before Bush. In fact, Bush is a strong symptom of our national illness, not its cause. Land of Opportunity? We now sport one of the highest disparities between rich and poor in the industrialized world, and our rich continue to outsource our jobs. Education? Increasingly we are abandoning our poor. Health care? Same. Democracy? We have a sick system in dire need of serious overhaul, one in which money (and its ally, Madison Avenue), and not the true desires of the people, count. How do you think we got Bush in the first place?

I'm not saying that Bush didn't do damage. He has indeed done grave, if not fatal, damage to our beloved nation. Before Bush, we did do evil things, far, far more of them than you let on. But we did at least publicly stand for the rule of law. We observed the Geneva Conventions and our own Constitution (mostly). Our post-WWII destruction of the European Left, which had done so much to resist the Nazi occupiers, was at least balanced by the generous provisions of the Marshall Plan. And when a large enough segment of our population got wind of nefarious deeds, we acted to correct them. The civil rights movement of the 60s and 70s stands as a shining example of what America really should be about. Yes we did evil (slavery, discrimination), but we really did take our American Virtues seriously and attempted to apply them.

But since the 70s it's been a downhill slide. I'm not sure why, but it seems to coincide with the abandonment of Keynesian economic policies and the advent of the Thatcherism that Reagan so admired. This, I think, has ushered in a certain meanness into our society, everyone for him/herself. Trade unions were effectively destroyed, the corporation reigns supreme, and PR firms rule our discourse. I can't think of a thing that we have done since then that is worthy of high praise and admiration.

The bottom line is this: How was Bush elected in the first place? He was totally unqualified. Molly Ivins and others warned us of the impending doom. And yet the national press went on a mission to destroy Al Gore, after it had been on a hunt to destroy Bill Clinton. Our Democracy, one of our most admired and core virtues, was on life support even before Bush, ripe for abuse by authoritarians and plutocrats. With Bush, the disease has finally manifested itself for all to see. We now openly (rather than covertly) do evil, do no good to offset it, and, given the pronouncements of our Dear Leader, are proud of it. This disease to our Democracy is what we need to fix. If we do, our standing in the world will take care of itself.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall inside the NY Times. Gordon and Burns cannot act alone, they have editors. The same was true of Judith Miller. And yet, you have Hoyt and others who on the editorial pages (as readers have pointed out) have expressed views backed with statements of fact that are at odds with what their own reporters (Gordon and Burns) are saying.

There seems to be a more fundamental problem here than a few rotten reporters. The Times blunders on from one crisis to the next, which they appear to "solve" by ditching the reporter in question (Jayson Blair, Judith Miller), but go on to make the same mistakes with other reporters. Who is really responsible for this crisis at the Times? That's what I want to know.

I think their priorities have to be stopping the war, winning the White House and retaining control of Congress in November 2008

I'm all for stopping the war. But the Democrats have made no great effort to do so, mostly for fear of spending their precious "political capital." So be it. If they do nothing out of timidity, then the goals of "winning the White House and retaining control of Congress" are worthless in that they will accomplish nothing.

This lack of fortitude has afflicted the Democrats for some time now. They have failed us miserably as an opposition party for the last 6 years. In the Senate, all but Russ Feingold caved on the preposterous Patriot Act. Opposition to the Iraq War amounted to little more than brave, forlorn efforts by Robert Byrd, Feingold, and a few others (no doubt most Democrats were afraid of wasting political capital then too—the heck with principles). They trembled with fear at the "Nuclear Option", fearing the loss of the filibuster power they never once used meaningfully—we now have Alito and Roberts. Many (if not a majority) went happily along with the atrocious Bankruptcy "reform" bill, written by the banking industry. Many also inexcusably voted for the Military Commissions Act. There seems to be no discipline, no guiding principle at work, except fear of spending "political capital."

I'll tell you why pursuing Articles of Impeachment is right, both from moral and practical standpoints. First, it is the right thing to do. This president is a criminal. He has not only violated numerous US and International laws (to say nothing of his oath to the Constitution), he is also a warmonger who is very likely to involve us in an even move disastrous foreign adventure, this time with Iran. Second, bringing action, even against tall odds, will force congressmen to put their positions on the record, either opposing or supporting it. This will be a very useful weapon in the next campaign, as things are only going to go from bad to worse. And finally, you might be surprised at the return on the investment on the political capital spent.