many men "are more likely to experience a vicarious boost in their own sense of power and potency when American military forces attack, and especially when they defeat, an enemy."

Did the researcher not also note that this same reaction is engendered by something as banal as a sporting event? Is there any doubt that the alums who fund the stadiums are doing it as a form of Viagra?

Even the Supreme Court of Chief Justice John Roberts has recently shown heightened concern about administration's conduct of the war on terror.

Is the majority on the Roberts Court really concerned about this administration's abuses? Or is it looking into the near future, realizing that a Democratic administration is right around the corner, foreseeing these same unreasonable powers invested in "the other guys," and not liking what they see?

Tom's point is there's nothing in the "item" space on PayPal. I love you dearly, Glenn, but I'm not making a payment into the ether. I gotta see where it's going.

Now I see where it says "Unclaimed Territory" up on top. For being a dumbass, I doubled my contribution. Wish it could be more.

If every word of York's article is true, so what? How does it feel, Rush? To be slammed with a version of the truth sliced-and-diced to serve an agenda not your own? You like being Swiftboated? Does it feel good? No? Gee, we're sorry.

I haven't seen the movie, but I read the book. That bit about the transponder was not given away at the beginning. I hope it was in the movie, or you've just been very bad.

If they really believe in their ostensible principles, they ought to apply them equally.

Dream on.

I can't stand reading either one of you disingenuous gasbags.

But you soldier on, reading GG anyway to confirm your dislike and bravely report it to...us?

Wait a minute. Who says we have to be fair? They aren't!

Okay, then. For the record. Seymour Hersh's terrific article in the New Yorker re the administration's plans to attack Iran is full of "...two former senior officials of the CIA told me..." and "...according to a former senior intelligence official..."

The article echoes left-wing thinking about More War, and it's also full of unattributed quotes and information.

Maybe both sides do it?

The difference is that in the Hersh piece, he is quoting people the government doesn't want you to hear.

And in the Ignatius piece, he's quoting people we don't want to hear.

They are sources that need to stay black in order to protect themselves.

Almost all of them had "retired" in front of their provenance, so I question that.

Ignatius is quoting people the government DOES want you to hear, i.e., it is propaganda. There is no need for these sources to stay black, except to protect the government.

Yes, those people have every reason to stay black, since they don't want to be held accountable by the public or bloggers like Glenn for the utter misleading shite that issues from their mouths.

I would prefer, on both sides, that sources that can't be named should be countable on the fingers of two fingers, max, in any given article.

That a giant defense contractor would expect the giant media outlet it owns to act in its best interests. Shocked.

If someone is allowing the worst possible pejoratives to be used to describe people who want to stop a bully from beating up on his enemies -- and who is promising soon to beat up on other of his enemies as well -- how does that qualify as strange?

Even Mike "Gomer Pyle" Huckabee. He's like one of those killer clowns in the slasher movies.

Politics=Democracy is exactly right.

Ike didn't even commit to being a Republican until January of 1952 (the equivalent of 2008) and didn't enter himself in the running until March 12 of that year. Why would Gore jump into a bruising race now? Why not wait and see how badly the others beat each other up, then join the fray as the most vigorous and un-mutually-sullied of the bunch? The convention is next August and who knows what'll happen between now. Gore is our spare tire, it makes sense to keep him in the trunk for now.

This isn’t about whether we’re actually winning, it’s about Lowry, Pollack, Hanson, O’Hanlon et al. needing somewhere to stand after Iraq is all over. It's the difference between being, for the next forty years, “The Guys Who Were Wrong And Got A Lot Of People Killed” or being “The Guys Who Got It Right, Actually, But Nobody Listened.” It was a integral part of the wingnut mythology after Vietnam (the peaceniks quit early, we were winning), and here we go again. Can't blame them, really.

Women have been given lead roles for many decades. Hollywood would put late-stage lepers and naked grandmothers in leading roles if they made money. A couple of Westerns flop, it's "We're never gonna make another Western." "We're never gonna make another kids' sports movie." Etc., etc.

The situation that KBRTrucker describes makes perfect sense to me. You've got an army that is too small and a war that is not popular at home. People are not signing up, so you make the ones you've already got your hooks into do longer tours. You give them all those goodies because if they were living in pup tents and eating MREs, they would revolt and you wouldn't have an army at all. The expense for those gyms and movie screens and driving ranges are what the American taxpayer pays, along with the cost of independent contractors, for not having a draft. Of course, if we had a draft, this war would never have gotten off the ground. And around and around we go...

They're like the Flat Earthers, the Creationists, etc. They've always been amongst us.

The best way to say thanks to Salon is to become a premium subscriber.