Waterboarding, if it was done to US soldiers or civilians, would demand the harshest retirbution, I'm sure. Those least offended by it being done to people who have been found guilty of precisely nothing would be most viturpiratively calling for the blood of those who committed such actions against "our boys." Nevertheless, I fear that such practices were far from the worst atrocities committed in this demented "war on terror." Waterboarding is a distraction from the principle of the thing and likely a cover for worse activities.

And before Kuffy baby starts to wet himself in fear and outrage, I tell you all this: if found guilty of murdering civilians, I'd line the al Qaida people up against a wall and shoot them. But I want to be damn certain I'm shooting the right people. And I want to do it in a way that eliminates terrorists, not spawn new ones or encouraging millions of Muslims to support them or turn a blind eye to their activities.

Justice is ON our side, not the terrorists, so long as we act justly and within the rules of law and war.

But the idea that he's only been President for three weeks, cut him some slack, lacks credibility. He ran for President for a year and a half, and was supposed to be thinking about these issues. He had three months to get his legislative priorities straight. He's had plenty of time to wiegh the merits of many highly intelligent dissidents who have pointed out the bankruptcy of the system for years: Nader, Chalmers Johnson, Andrew Bacevitch, James Galbraith, Kucinich, Ron Paul, Michael Klare, Doug Henwood, Barbara Ehrenreich, and dozens more. He appointed none of them to any office. He seems reluctant to take on the idiotic military/imperial establishment, and seems more interested in making nice with Republicans than punishing the people who got us into this mess. You can call me all the nasty names you want, but these are facts, and worrisome facts to boot. Obama is unquestionably better than McCain. But McCain was inept and toxic. Obama being kindly, bright, and ineffectual may be better, but it is not good enough, and we the People have a right to expect more.

I agree with the lady or gentleman who said that Wall Street LOVES layoffs. Thier long term plans must now be to see how they can still make a killing off of a severely contracted economy that is unlikely to ever rebound to the levels of consumption we saw circa 1994-2006. But if they can keep inflation under control, and lots of out of work people certainly helps that, they can get some Obama infrastructure spending and tax cuts, keep the obscenely high "defense" outlays, and shift to new strategies for bilking the shunken pie of American wealth. I fear Obama lacks either the will or the ability to wrest control from the top 10% who still don't seem all that upset about this economic meltdown.

The UK under Baldwin and Chamberlain did almost exactly what the WSJ types want--they slashed expenditures, halted convertibility of Sterling to gold (thus letting the pound fall to its "natural" market price), and hunkered down so as to ride it out. This all worked slightly better, if you include the bad year caused by the premature withdrawal of funds from New Deal projects in 1936-7, than the New Deal did. But only for three reasons: deflation made food affordable even for those receiving a pitance on the "dole"; Britain was simply the most traditional and politically stable nation on the planet at that time; the British had not enjoyed much of a boom in the 1920s, so the relative impact of the Depression (or "Slump" as it was known) was less and the economy did not contract as much as it did in the USA.

Add to this the extreme hardship many had already experienced during WWI, and the lack of the classic American belief in endless progress and bondless possibilities, and you can see why the National/Conservative governments of 1931-1939 could adopt the old policies and ride them out. Of course, massive rearmament starting in the second half of 1937 eventually ended their Depression, too, just as it did in the USA.

Three years back I had the head of the College Republicans on my campus ask to do his Seniors Honor Thesis on Reagan, Star Wars, and the End of the Cold War. As the only military historian in town, I got to be the primary reader of the thing. Within a month, I had this kid's head spinning, because, to put it bluntly, Reagan's position on the USSR and detente were a moving target, and by 86-87 he was way out ahead of both Republicans and Democrats in pushing for serious arms reductions and concerted dialogue with the Ruskies. The image of "Reagan the implacable, unbending foe of the commies" fell apart as this kid looked through the record. What will horrify the Repubs of today is that Reagan became a pragmatist as he went along, and was ready to meet anywhere and talk about anything with his adversaries, and even, dear God, compromise with them in the interests of peace!

Reagan, on balance, did more bad than good IMO, but the Republicans of today are more full of shit when they portray him as a brain-dead, no-talk, all guns proponent of endless confrontation than when they argue he was a "great" President.