wrote:With respect to the policies and misdeeds Glenn is talking about, the most important things are that they be exposed in the daylight and that they end.

The dominant important thing is that these and other misdeeds be exposed in a way that makes them much less likely to happen again. Thus it is necessary that there be some significant accounting. Nobody does the time, the sooner someone repeats the crime.

wrote:He seems to me to be the guy to say, if a crime's been commited then they will face the music. Period.

Show me some evidence for this. I am certainly not against Mr. Obama. Best president-elect we have had in many decades. But I do not see him thinking as you say. I think his attitude is "Yes, some bad thinks were done, but let's move on and do good things".

wrote:Punishment seems to have really turned around the drug problem in this country hasn't it?

No, but that has nothing to do with what would deter the folks in power from torture and murder. The reasons for this are complicated, no doubt. But you might start with the relative probability of getting caught using drugs on the one hand with that of someone noticing that you started just one illegal war of choice by lying to those who elected you on the other hand. Oh, and by the way, made torture a policy and thrashed other legal "details" along the way.

But it was a nice attempt at distraction from the issue. Not sure it qualifies you for nomination for any award, though.

I do not think that W thought he was protecting anybody when he invaded Iraq. I think that for him the issue was "the role of the United States in the world, and my role in making it happen." Once you think that way and are willing to to lie, cheat and steal to get your way, doing other little things that help out the main goal is easy, even if they seem outrageous to others.

So, yes, I think you are missing the point completely with your W justifications.

In this case America's dirty laundry belongs to the world. W's crimes are international, and ought to be tried in international court. If that is not to happen, they must be publicly tried in the US. In any case, the first step is a public disclosure of the crimes with all the dirty details.

Sorry, but Bill Clinton's official policies have nothing to do with W's reason for invading Iraq. You are just trying to avoid making a serious reply.

It was because Michelle does not like football, not women in general.

Given their natural lack of independence, the democrats in the house can continue to look for leadership from him even though he will be in the white house. They have, after all, followed the lead of the Bush white house.

I doubt that Mrs. Obama will print it and post it on the refrigerator, but precisely because she is such an accomplished person in all ways, this article should round out her resume.

The ruling bipartisan elite is more than a bit nervous when the people have just voted for change. Some of the new guys might actually try to do something different. I think most of the talk and action is aimed at them: show them how you get ahead and stay ahead in Washington. Sign up, or wither on the vine.

Those of us who can take such freedom for granted should salute these honorees and their many colleagues who risk life and liberty every day to do their jobs.

I am not sure what to make of this. It is not as though the US government is absent from the discussion. I suppose that sentence might mean: As long as we support the US establishment on the whole, we can pick at the edges a bit and still keep our jobs.

defines what ought to be true in an absolute sense, and therefore what must be true in a political sense. Remember the original definition of "politically correct".

I have both criticized and supported some of Pablo's calculations in the past. Sure, anybody can divide instead of multiply. That is not the point. When one thinks about these things, the idea is to keep in mind which factors move the result which way. Then when you make a serious math error you know that the result is wrong. An author that does not do that is going to get clobbered.

and look at the potential differences between the last eight years and the next. We have had and still have a zero at the top, with mostly neocons to set the policies and selfish pragmatists to steal the goodies. On January 20 next year, we should have in place a team of competent people who, left to their own devices, might not be able to set a coherent foreign policy. But they will not be left alone. They will be led by an intelligent charismatic man who ideas on foreign policy are not well known, and may not be fully formed.

That last clause signals a potential opening to influence what happens globally in the next four to eight years. If a kinder and gentler USA is a possibility, then the pragmatic thing to do now is to influence the president elect. I think the next seven weeks should be a campaign, at least as important as the electoral campaign, but one aimed at a single individual rather than at the people of the country.