There is more to this than the "He was given orders from above," and "I was just following orders," narrative that frames this issue. There is a psychological reordering of soldiers in the boot camp process, that breaks down their natural inhibitions to kill, torture, and accept the grotesque realities of war as normal. Everyday soldiers, not necessarily sadists, are susceptible to allowing an authority to usurp their own dormant moral code, resulting in war crimes. All American conflicts show evidence of war crimes. The actions at Abu Graib pale in comparison to many during the Vietnam conflict. We are too quick to point the finger of individual responsibility (i.e. Granger, Bush, Rumsfeld..,) and should realize there is a system that creates these scenarios of war crimes. Understanding the confluence of events and conditions necessary to incubate these crimes, will help us avoid them in future conflicts. Sweeping war crimes under a rug by 'holding the individual accountable' or avoidance, as we as a nation have done during all conflicts, only results in the continuation of the problem.

What is the point of having this long sought after majority in the house and senate? This vote needs a 3/5ths majority because it appropriates money. 4 Dems strayed from the caucus. Even with the 4 the Dems would have been 4 shy, but still... Even if we spend all this time courting a-holes like Lieberman, there will still be 4 nozzles who will vote against their party. Without a tighter control of the party line, that 60 member Senate filibuster-proof majority is more or less a pipe dream.

On the vote itself: Screw the American auto industry. They do more damage to this planet than can be made up for with their creepy factory jobs. Anyone been to Detroit lately? I have. The best thing that could happen to those people is if the auto industry disappeared overnight, then they might get on with their lives and rise above the crime and poverty and soulless existence of the factory slave.

You have to have ashes to rise out of them like a Phoenix. Burn it down.

All that media bullshit about Acorn, and not one vote lost to Acorn malfeasance. Yet here we are in Minnesota and each precinct has lost ballots, improper count totals called in, rejected ballots etc... One guy alone cost the Dems 100 votes by calling in a total that didn't coincide with the actual votes. He said it was a mistake. The vote count total was less than 700 votes and he shaved 100 to the benefit of the Republicans. Why isn't he being investigated by the Justice Department? The courts, the press, the people are all willing to overlook this obvious subversion of our process? Thousands of articles on Acorn, and not one questioning why Franken is gaining votes all over the place. If it was standard mistakes, they should land 50/50.

I like your theory. There are some flaws. The last KKK were not the most ideological pure. I think extremists don't out pious themselves, they just divide into factions. These ideologies attract hard core leaders and hard core followers, with very few moderates or leader/followers. Hard core leaders have a hard time taking orders from above. Eventually the extremists faction and their strength in numbers diminishes. Richard Cizik is an example of this factionization. If he remains political he may invite others to his group.

This article, barring the ominous background music and the accompaning black and white images of the candidate in unflattering poses, is the equivalent of a manipulative attack ad. "What is Caroline Kennedy hiding that even her cousin doesn't know about her? We have no paper trail. Scary!" paid for by the committee to elect whomever isn't Caroline Kennedy.

Joan Walsh is the editor-in-chief of respected online magazine with a slant towards liberal politics. I'm guessing Kennedy would field her call. Joan can ask her this question directly and print her answer here. Joan can do her job and report the news, not attempt to make it.

He is confident because he probably has a good case for his defense in a court of law. That is why he is shifting this to the courts. He's already lost the war of public opinion, but if he can get a not guilty verdict in court, he may gain the public back. He can say, see, the media was on a witch hunt but they were wrong. He is saying "I'm not guilty of what I've been accused of." And he is probably correct, and therefore can have confidence in his answer. He most likely can not say "I didn't want to benefit from the appointment of a Senator," because then he would be lying.

He could have a good case because it is hard to prove conspiracy without proof of clear intent. You and I can sit around on a wire tapped phone and talk about robbing banks, but none of that would stand up as a crime, if we didn't take other actions towards the crime (like purchasing ski masks...)

To pursue his strategy further he should position himself as a representative of the people who is the David to the media's Goliath. 'The media is trying to circumvent both democracy and a person's right to be presumed innocent.' Then he should stoke the fire and get the media to go way over the top. The harder they try to destroy him, the larger his "I told you so," could be if he wins in court. His difficulty will be to hold out when they offer him the plea deal. He needs to go all the way in court and take no deals for this to work. It will be difficult because a prosecutor will have the strategy of putting multiple charges against him. The odds are, one of these charges might stick so the temptation to accept a plea bargain will be great.

Failure is an ordinary circumstance of a free market.