wrote:

Taking that into account, if one's goal is national unity or closure, then, as other countries have shown in the aftermath of far greater turmoil, a truth and reconciliation process may be preferable.

There has been very little turmoil in the US over this. What do think is going to happen: a bunch of Rednecks are going to stop drinking beer, get off their butts and actually revolt because W gets locked up? A more likely response would be "Well I would like to get out and protest for my drinking buddy W, but he is the reason that I have to work two jobs to break even, and I cannot even get one".

Remember, it was the economy that got Obama elected. And he knows how to play that.

I think you both misunderstand the nature of the support for W. These are not people who are willing to take to the streets for a cause. They are mostly people who have been convinced to vote against their own interests. They have been convinced that a vote for W is a vote for everything good in the status quo, and at the same time, a vote for their own future success.

Then there are the rich and powerful. Do you think they really care what happens to W? He was just a tool to be discarded when his eight years were used up. OK, the new guy might not be quite as likely to do everything they want, but why make a fuss? He, too, only stays in office so many years. And given the state of the economy, it might be best to lie low for a few years and live off one's wealth.

Sounds suspiciously like the beltway opinions that Americans don't support investigations.

Not sure what that means, but I guess you disagree with me. Fine. But consider the demographics. The short answer: Obama supporters are young; Bush supporters are old. In a time when even the young do not take to the streets, do you think the old will?

Bush supporters continue to believe, or did until recently, that Iraq caused 9/11. Bush supporters believe him when he says "We do not torture". Is this belief enough to cause massive social unrest? I doubt it.

I do have trouble seeing Kagan leading the charge, with elder statesman Kristol providing the intellectual justification.

Thank you for your most sensible reply, and I certainly do not want to argue with you. Perhaps for "educating" the American people, some left-leaning, commie, pinko, Hollywood producer could make a TV show, a kind of anti-24, in which lawless government officials are hunted down and brought to justice by myopic-looking ACLU types. Oh, maybe not.

There is a difference between volunteers and voters.

Do you think the bad economy will lead to a revolt of the right or the left?

wrote: Yes, I understood you were not advocating one position or the other, that is why I thought your post was very reasonable and thoughtful.

Good heavens, one would not want to advocate a position. That would be contrary to the MSM journalistic model of reality, in which the truth always lies halfway between the nasty extremes.

wrote: Why is "faith" even at issue here? I don't have good faith, bad faith, blind faith or Ginger Baker.

Well, if that does not drum up some support for your position, nothing will!

so Gary can sit on his deck. Most news related stuff on the web fulfills a function that traditional newspapers never could. There is no reason why the web cannot perform that function as well. It already does, to a large extent. So let's not connect dead trees with the death of traditional reporting. It is two different issues; if the latter is to continue, both the demand and the correct business model must exist.

A counter argument would need to explain how the physical plant and distribution system of a traditional newspaper are essential to traditional reporting. It would also have to explain why news services have been a useful tool for newspapers for so long.

The US has a huge prison population; consider it a calibration point. Nothing short of putting those responsible in prison will affect their behavior or have any impact on potential imitators.

Want to get people out of prison? Change the drug laws.

R and C wrote:

...But no one is entitled to hound political opponents with criminal prosecution, whether directly or through the device of a commission, and those who support such efforts now may someday regret the precedent it sets.

I see this as a warning to any democrats who might be so foolish as to support an investigation. It means: "Many of you knew what was happening from the beginning. We will make sure that you go down if anyone on our side does."

Investigation by the DOJ and eventual prosecution might be unlikely, but it is more likely than any action from the congress.

What makes you think that the democrats are not going to continue doing exactly what the Republicans want? OK, not every day, but when it come to protecting a republican butt, there will be a democrat who notices that his own is uncovered. And he will realize that the republican is ahead of him and has already proposed the remedy. All in the name of bipartisanship, of course.

last MSM interview. These benefits were set up in very different times, but there are some lessons for both union and management about setting up the financing of such benefits. Did either side act in its best long term interest? And one side is not really management, but rather the stockholders, who, in principle, hire management to represent them.