Given the huge improvements in oversight and control resulting from far better communication, the difference between then and now is this: policy.

Folks are calling for the usual legal process (investigation, ....). Funny how this small difference has slipped your mind, such as it is.

wrote:

A) The US hasn't attacked Iran nor North Korea, not because they are well armed, but because little to nothing could be gained by such an action.

And that, of course, explains why the US invaded Iraq: there was something to be gained. Oh, maybe not. I will go with the armed nuclear camp hypothesis for the non-invasions, and just plain ignorance and stupidity for the invasion.

wrote:

The Serbians were trying to preserve their power by killing the Moslem. On the other hand the US governemt is trying to prevent the terrorists from another attack on US soil. Comparing these two events are morally irresponsible.

You don't think the Bushies were concerned with power?

(When errors in fact, logic, spelling, and grammar all occur in one paragraph, it reduces the effectiveness of your message.

the Cohen piece that Ondelette discussed:

Almost 20 years ago, I wrote a similar column about algebra. Math teachers struck back with a vengeance. They made so many claims for algebra's intrinsic worth that I felt, as I once had in class, like a dummy. Once again, I just didn't get it. Still, in the two decades since, I have lived a pretty full life and never, ever used -- or wanted to use -- algebra. I was lucky, though. I had graduated from high school and gone on to college. It's different for you, Gabriela. Algebra ruined many a day for me. Now it could ruin your life.

So not only does he fail to understand algebra, he is belittled by its intrinsic worth. He has insufficient logical abilities to understand that he should have some moral qualms about the actions he applauds.

wrote:

...Greenwald’s view is scary to me. I disagree with his many views. But I always enjoy reading him for his detail and thorough analysis. They act as my counter point to make sure I am thinking rigorously and correctly.

If I were Glenn, I would be very scared to learn that you attribute your "rigorous and correct" thinking to him.

wrote: Every day I search for one, just one, pro-Israel article that isn´t written by some crazy right wing religious fanatic...

Does this mean that the USA has no right to exist? Does this mean all Americans are evil racists?

You do not find enough pro-Israel articles in the US press, and you think this means that either the press of the public is stating or believing that Israel has no right to exist, and Israelis are considered evil racists?

I do not believe you. I think you are one of several trolls who see that blind support for Israel might be coming to an end. This is your tactic to keep that support intact.

Is something funny happening with the formatting? Block quotes work in preview but not when posted. If no one else sees this, I will assume that I have a problem with my browser.

"The irony, of course, is that by making a two-state solution impossible, Israel is hurtling down a path likely to lead to its destruction as a Jewish state due to demographics."

There are a lot of cards left to play before Israel loses the support of the US. Consider this: "We will use any means to assure our own defense." That might be good for a couple more decades of US help when the alternatives are examined.

Shooter:

Yeah, let's let Israel off the leash.

It's time to let Israel handle it's own affairs, it's own way, without our interference. The best way to resolve conflicts in the ME is too let the antagonists fight it out amongst themselves.

Israel has nukes. The other countries do not. You might aim for MAD, but that is a whole other configuration; the current one is too unstable to be independently sustaining. But you are not serious anyway, right?

A nuclear war is a problem for everybody, both for direct and indirect effects.

Glenn said even-handed, I believe. I think you misinterpreted it.

But again, I do not think you are really serious. And the cake wants me to be nice, so I will stop here.

wrote:

I believe Kings speech is about the effect on America's soul from being involved in constant unjust wars. I even believe a (justifiable) distinction can be made between US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example.

Constant war, just or unjust, has many bad effects deteriorating, civil liberties one of them. Not sure what MLT meant.

Consider the response to 9/11. It does not matter whether the response is just or not, most of the bad effects occur either way. And guess who knew that beforehand.

Bahh...:"Of course, it could be Tom's ex. got fed up and left him first, Glenn."

But it does not keep me happy for long. Just think why a guy like Daschle would want to be in the cabinet. Surely he would not give up megabucks, except for even more future megabucks. So this tells us what kind of job he will do for, or should I say, on, the people.

wrote: Healthcare companies have to make decisions about how they will react to coming changes.

You mean by hiring someone who can help make sure that they do not happen?

The Bush administration has greatly expanded one sector of our economy: lobbying. And it is bipartisan.

When you say "threat", do you mean "thread", in the sense of "threaded discussion". (I think this is not a typo because I have seen it twice.) Or am I lagging in my comprehension of terminology again?

Thanks, I was just wondering.