As political theatre this one looks like a trap. Already the MSM have prepared us for the grilling that Obama and Clinton are going to give the General. Will Pertreaus score a few sympathy points? Senator I'm just a country boy doing the hard job the Commander in Chief has given me. Maybe you should take it up with him (SURRENDER MONKEY!!)...

So you're absolutely right, both sides will probably call it a draw. The Presidential candidates will settle for a couple of sound bites. We shouldn't assume that just because the hearings show nothing of substance that nothing is going on behind the scenes. The hearings with the Federal Reserve board failed to produce tough questions on what the Fed was doing when it bailed out Bear Sterns, byt after the hearing Barney Frank laid the foundation for a deeper inquiry.

The real issue is whether there is a bigger trap, a premeditated attack on Iran. The rumor mills, Russian Intel, etc. are all saying so, but they have said it before. The point to be made at these hearings, is whether the General is a political lackey of the President. How many Generals have there been General? Is that normal?

Among the most important details lost in all this is the struggle for power on the Permanent Select Comm on Intel. After the midterms Pelosi demoted Jane Harman, and appointed Reyes of Texas, who was initially in favor of the troop surge, and telecom immunity [the Comm drafted that legislation, Reyes was in favor of immunity, and woefully ignorant about Iraqi politics, but he bowed to Democratic pressure].

You can read it all at Wikipedia. The Harman dustup with Pelosi came after the administration ran its bad intelligence through the committee, at a time when Republicans controlled the Congress. Harman was equivical. She had some tepid words about the 9/11 Commission and the advance warnings Condi Rice had on her desk, stuff that should have been brought to light.

The FBI has been investigating Harman for making deals with AIPAC. The FBI is not an apolitical law enforcement agency. Republicans will cite chapter and verse about Waco, and Ruby Ridge, and their own abuses are a matter of record.

Then there is the Central California Democrats club, Pelosi, Harman and Condit. Condit [supposedly] murdered an intern, Chandra Levy, who he was having an affair with. COndit was an honorary seat on the Senate Intell Comm, which was headed at the time by Duncan Hunter. Hunter was never directly tied to close associate Randy Cunningham, in the Wilkes bribery scandal, although the black contracts in that case are still sealed.

Ms. Levy was no Monica Lewinsky, she had made trips to Israel, and ran out of college eligibilty. Her photos suggest a young woman with mature values. Her family belongs to a Conservative Jewish Synagouge. The rumors about her death included mention of the Israeli secret police, and various Palestinian organizations. Officially the murder is a cold case, but it derailed Condit, a blue dog, or moderate Democrat. The group had been stealing Republican seats across the country. With the moderates out of the way, the mice could play. Harman is also considered a Blue Dog.

Then came 9/11, the bad intelligence caught a free ride through Congress, American foreign policy toward Israel took a hard right, and Congressional Democrats were looking over their shoulders. Interesting the Pelosi chose someone, Reyes, who was less than competent on the issue of Iraq. Consider that impeachment was always off the table, (she was booed in SF) and that virtually nothing the Democrats promised in 2006 has come to pass.

Pelosi is fighting a stiff challenge in her own district, an election perhaps more important than the Presidency. Maybe it's just dissatisfaction with the Blues, or maybe they were politically infiltrated. Either way their power, or lack thereof, shaped the entire Iraq war intelligence.

I think the answer to this is yes. People are simply more compassionate. I recall anecdotally from my youth, that if a dog was hit by a car few people would stop. Now several people stop, and someone calls a veterinary ambulance. Television (the vast wasteland) is filled with programming which demonstrates how people care about each other, and their environment. (We still tend to stare at the TV violence, and this may be the reason behind the red state blue state divide. What does cable content in Montana look like?)

Aside from television, how do you measure this thing? I think you reread Joan Didion's Slouching Toward Bethlehem, a set of essays written ostensibly by a noted liberal. The essays are littered however with what are Conversative principles; fear of crime, rejection of the self indulgent, and repeated use of the symbols of decay. The Liberals of the 60's may have become the COnservatives of the 90's, without changing political values one whit. What has changed is how people treat each other outside these outdated parameters. Didion may have been prematurely aged, but the rest of society has been evolving. Even the most regressive Republicans were forced to pay lip service to the concept of compassion. That the system still doesn't get it, should remind us that 60's activism is still necessary.

These things confuse me. What is the World Bank? The IMF? Are they the same thing? Note that the Washington based lending institution is closing offices around the world. According to Wikipedia they manage the international payment system. The governor is Henry Paulson, alternate governor Bernanke. The US holds 17% of the voting power, no one else has more than 6%.

There is a whole lot more there, point being who are these guys, just the same old dog faces hiding behind some corporate shell?