242 has been on the books for 40 years. It's still the basis of what needs to happen, ON BOTH SIDES.

The Palestinians, as the occupied country, have rights under the Geneva conventions, which specifically forbid settlements in occupied territory. Israel has clearly and repeatedly violated these rights. The UN charter specifically forbids the acquisition of territory through warfare; Israel has done this. 242 requires Israel to retreat to its pre-war borders unconditionally. No quid pro quo. They have not done this.

The point of my original post is that we, the US, and our allies, such as Israel, always insist on concessions before any negotiations can even begin. This is the case here. They, and we, and you, require the Palestinians to make some sort of concession first before anything else can happen. If this isn't rewarding Israel with the fruits of their aggression, what is it?

In a just world, Israel would negotiate in good faith with the Palestinians. They would put 242 on the table in exchange for the recognition of Israel by Palestinians, without any preconditions. But Israel's actions speak louder than words. Their permanent settlements and their wall that travels through the heart of Palestinian territory, all lead to the inescapable conclusion that they have no intention whatever complying with 242. If I were a Palestinian, I'd be pissed too. So would you, I dare say.

What Carlson describes perfectly fits the role of the propagandist. He passes on what the powerful wish him to pass on. Nothing more, nothing else. And he has the gall to belittle the Scotsman. Unbelievable.

It's fascinating to me that visiting a call girl is cause for resignation, but violating the Constitution, torturing people, waging aggressive war that causes hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths, all mean that impeachement is "off the table." What interesting times we live in.

Yes, he was feared on Wall Street. That's why he had to go down. Ask yourself: Why was the Bush Justice Dept. wiretapping a minor prostitution ring? Why this one in particular?

This was no accident. No one is a hero; all of us have failings. In this age of Total Information Awareness, if--from the point of view of the Elites--one of us steps out of line, as Spitzer did, some salacious details of their private lives can be dredged up to put them back in their place.

This whole episode has me depressed not because of what Spitzer did, but because here was someone who was brave enough to try to curb the excesses of our ruling plutocrats and he was all too easily swatted down. If it takes a Saint to clean up this pigsty, what hope is there? Our standards of morality are way out of whack. The fat cats Eliot Spitzer went after destroyed peoples lives, but that apparently is AOK, so long as in doing so they don't visit call girls. Likewise, waging aggressive war, torturing people, destroying our Constitutional form of government, that too is AOK (impeachment is "off the table") so long as said person doesn't visit call girls and is seen to be a Good Christian Man. But fooling around with an intern, look out! Impeachment City, complete with a Chief Justice in golden stripes.

Sick.

Seeing how we are witnessing the Congress about to give Bush all he wants in the way of wiretapping freedom, could this be an example of what is to come? It seems to me that this could be an example of a politically motivated abuse of surveillance powers.

I don't think one has to be paranoid to believe something really really fishy went on here. This is a perfect example of how warrantless surveillance could be used to stifle political dissent and destroy political enemies.

We are none of us saints. We are all human beings. Given Total Information Awareness and all the data mining algorithms and interconnected databases and the freedom to use them in secrecy, the government could find out any number of embarrassing and damaging facts about any one of us and use it against us. Eliot Spitzer hurt a lot of very influential but bad people. This smacks of payback.

* Sometimes, people force women against their will to work as prostitutes. Therefore, we should outlaw all prostitution (rather than just outlaw forced prostitution and human trafficking).

Those who would keep prostitution illegal should understand that it is precisely because it is illegal that it is associated with these evils. Legalize it and the demand for forced prostitution and human trafficking evaporates.

There was nothing repulsive about the experiences, because a human being is a human being

What a wonderful, humane sentiment.

Why can't so many who have commented here live and let live, so long as no one is getting hurt?* Real freedom doesn't mean driving SUVs with cheap gas. It means being free to make your own choices, without having someone else's morality shoved down your throat. Unfortunately what we see here is the same attitude that proclaims our right to decide how Iraqis or Venezuelans or Cubans should govern themselves. Except now it is being applied right here at home.

* Prostitution is no different than any other common human activity engaged in for money. What makes it harmful in this country is that it is illegal; others have done a good job of pointing out why this is so elsewhere.