What all of you have to complain about, or what your expectations were, will no doubt continue to perplex me.

Then think a little harder. An expanded war in Asia looks bad to me, even if we do wind down a worse one. A US that minds its own business should be a goal. Maybe we could take out pirates, but leave governments alone? There is a lot we could do better, but, oh, it is so perplexing!

But between too much trust and reverence on the one hand, and too much skepticism on the other, the last eight years should have taught -- but don't seem to have -- that the former is far more dangerous than the latter.

what many are too willing to give to Obama. Tell him what he needs to do.

Baldie M. discussed the response to the financial crisis with possible consequent loss of real change. I think the only way to get real change is to implement it as part of the response to a crisis. A measure of the durability of an organization is its ability to respond in just such a situation. The US is in free fall not only because of poor response to real crises, but also from the creation of false crises. And then when you screw up the response to one that you create...

The economic policy, which includes laws and regulations, has a huge influence on the financial decisions that individuals make, for example, your list. Sure, no one has to take out a loan they cannot afford. But the bank should not be offering such a loan (responsibility to its shareholders), and would not if they could not sell the debt to someone else, who should not be buying it, and so on. The rashness of individuals should not bring down the system. There need to be safeguards to prevent greed in financial institutions from doing it.

...either beliefs or memory in his job. And he cannot understand why anyone should have a problem with that.

And to those of you who found Commander Codpiece impressive: you are no better. (OK, if you are male and under age 17, you can still grow up.)

Another example of US foreign policy: It worked, no matter how bad it was, so it is the US spreading democracy. Oh, it did not work; then it was someone else's anti-democracy actions. But that well has been pumped dry; wait a while for the water table to rise again.

I suppose that if Glenn were to support massacres and coverups, that would be his business. But if the US government supports the same, that is my business as well as his and yours. But I guess you do not mind as long as the US government selects carefully which evil dictators it supports.

Poor choice of imagery. Religious bigotry is timeless, but unique in character in each situation. As a part of history, it rhymes.

Even worse: replace "threatens" with "is intended to". That is how the Vietnam war became nothing but a neo-con rallying point. Only real effort will make it any different this time.

right about energy and climate change and the need to keep the price of oil high...

I would not let him off the hook on this. Some ways of keeping the price of oil high benefit the same folks who benefit from the war. Being more subtle than Rush Limbaugh is not hard and is just a reflection of who his readership is.

Yes, I bought one too, and had to get rid of it; that is how bad it was. No wonder we never got Osama.

A proud old name gone to shame.

In Friedman's case would that not be the "Infallible Erect"?

Although I guess it does not matter, given the new compact definition of the F.U. above.

It does seem that they might be ready to hang separately rather than together. Maybe a bit more pressure will cause it to blow?

...Bush/Cheney assumed that 9/11 ushered in an era of PERMANENT EMERGENCY (an oxymoron, of course), which entitled them, they believed, to do anything they wanted in the name of defense, indefinitely.

Who knows what W is aware of, but Cheney assumed no such thing. He saw an opportunity to act without significant opposition or accountability. So he did what he wanted, and it did not turn out the way he expected.

If you enable a crime against humanity, you are guilty of that crime. A high position of authority and a direct position in the chain of command means that you can be charged and tried (Nuremburg). Supporting rendition is enabling torture, and therefore is torture. TG was very slick in stating that they are separate issues. They are not. Glenn, you let him off way too easy, and I thought that you almost agreed with him.

Let's include just two more sentences from Sullivan:

Well: waterboarding isn't even currently used under Bush any more. Talk about low expectations. And anyone close to Tenet has no place in an administration eager to restore America's moral standing.

Although it is good that you are reading the sources now, it is not honest to imply that what Sullivan is claiming is covered by the one sentence that you quoted.

" ...and that the opposition, whether it be Al Qaeda, or whether it be Iraq, doesn't play by the Marquis de Queensbury rules..."

The rules are there to raise the standard up to some minimum level of humanity. That means "we" have to obey them. He does not even pretend to believe that.

Thank you for writing those two posts. I had wanted to write something similar, but had other obligations today. And I could not have written it as well (as I am sure everyone is aware).