It looks very nice, Glenn-- and the color scheme even makes it look a bit familiar. Congratulations! I also joined today, and look forward to reading you here.

Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination of enemies as relapses into barbarism.

Well, that explains it, then. Reynolds is an uncivilized barbarian, and this is the kind of "thinking" Bush's leadership inspires. Both of them are a disgrace. I hope the US is able to regain its former respect in the World of Civilized Nations, but it's going to take massive outrage from within at Reynold's kind of rhetoric, and actions to match. You help, Glenn. Thanks.

I loved Obama's response, basically: "If it's that important to you, commit more troops." Howard's response to Obama was pretty impotent. If they were to have the same percentage of their population there that we do, he'd have to commit another 10,000 of Australia's soldiers. I'd really enjoy the political blowback he's get to that.

TG: But did it really bolster the point?

I thought it did. I think you're focusing on form and missing content.

domini: The University can not and should not censor or reprimand Dr. Reynolds for his argument.

No. But if I were a potential student, I'd certainly be considering the quality of the instructors, and you'd think the University would be interested in that, too.

Update IV: after chatting for a couple of minutes with the very amiable if not slightly confused Forbes

Unless you mean she was very confused, I think you meant to write, "the very amiable, if slightly confused, Forbes."

I would also caution you that nice little old ladies can be great actresses, too.

mcguire: I could write a Greasemonkey Script for Firefox that puts all the comments on one page. So it is definitely doable.

Ooh. If you do this, will you please include the "kill" button feature I put to great use at UT? I really, really miss that.

This somehow turned into a debate? There is a pro side?

Margalis? Meet Wingnuts.

I loved this quote from the LA Times story today (which I was happy to see had "Backpedal" in the headline):

"What matters is that they're there," [Bush] said, asking: "What's worse: that the government knew or that the government didn't know?"

I'd ask the same question about WMDs, but having to puzzle that one out might be the end of him.

That last part was me, not the Times, although a question along those lines would have been nice.

casual observer: While it seems perfectly evident to this news consumer that GGs claims are true, what seems much less clear are the motives behind reporters and their editors who indulge in uncritical reporting.

I think they get entrenched in a defensive posture, where admitting they made a mistake would force them to question their own integrity, gullibility, intelligence, complicity... you name it. I thought this exchange was interesting. It is a link within the list of articles linked to in the NY Times' admission of, oh-- not doing their job--that Glenn pointed us to:

A sample of the coverage, including the articles mentioned here, is online at nytimes.com/critique. Readers will also find there a detailed discussion written for The New York Review of Books last month by Michael Gordon, military affairs correspondent of The Times, about the aluminum tubes report. Responding to the review's critique of Iraq coverage, his statement could serve as a primer on the complexities of such intelligence reporting.

Michael Gordon tried to defend his aluminum tube coverage in Iraq, but the Michael Massing take-down that follows is pretty thorough.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17027

GG: The Times and the Post and other media outlets claim to recognize these principles in their policies regarding anonymous sourcing, but they are so flagrantly -- really intentionally -- disregarding those policies on a daily basis and it raises serious questions as to why that is.

I too wondered about their Ombudsmen. They both have one:

NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/thepubliceditor/index.html

He's even addressed journalists' motivations before:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/03/opinion/03pubed.html?ex=1171688400&en=9ff7c6a2083500fc&ei=5070

Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/25/LI2005032500838.html

Maybe they could answer the question, "Why are you violating your own policies?"

GG: The hallmark of an inauthentic belief is a refusal to sacrifice for it.

This is lovely, and I am going to use it many, many times. Thanks!

UPDATE: Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska just cited the "Abraham Lincoln quote" as part of his remarks on the Iraq Surge Resolution being debated in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Amazing. Staffers who don't surf the web. Representative Young needs to hire a couple of savvy bloggers to work for him!

Robert: He chuckled, as though enjoying his folksy insight into present geopolitical circumstances.

My hairdresser insists Osama Bin Laden was the President of Iraq until we kicked him out. [I wonder where she got that idea?] I'd try and disabuse her of the notion, but she's usually excited and waving sharp scissors in my general direction when she's talking about it.