... from his column today:

Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. ... If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.

Notice that at first Brooks claims no one has any clue what conditions will be like in Iraq when the next president takes office, then a few lines later says that if Obama removes the troops as he promises, he'll risk genocide in the region. Apparently, Brooks DOES know what conditions will be like in Iraq... I guess only he knows.

What a pompous ass!

Americans want to believe the honesty and integrity of anyone in a military uniform, especially a high ranking officer, is beyond reproach. But this is not the lesson of history and it surely is not the lesson to be garnered from the excellent NYT expose. In fact, just the opposite is evident, as these "military analysts" freely and eagerly traded on this inherent faith from the American people for personal profit. To put it bluntly, these ex-military men are nothing more than grifters.

I believe, given this overwhelming evidence that there is no more reason to believe what a general says than what his commander and chief says, that all those DC legislators who voted to condemn MoveOn.org for calling into question the integrity of General Petraeus owe that organization a huge apology.

No, that can't be the case. Just ask Howard Dean.

Williams dismisses any allegations against his two buddies with this comment: "They are warriors-turned-analysts, not lobbyists or politicians." Is one of our news anchors so enamored of "warriors" that in and of itself that categorization is all he needs to accept their honor and integrity? What a bozo!

Clearly Donald Rumsfeld was aware of the program and as a cabinet Secretary wasn't he part of the White House? Seems like it is clear the White House knew of this program, whether George Bush did or not...

Here's all you need to know to demonstrate the truth of McClellan's assertions, and put the lie to the liberal bias claim: Liberals have been making the same charges against the mainstream media since day one of the Iraq war, but the media have more or less ignored them. But when the same charge comes from a conservative, it causes a gathering of network anchors! Conservatives speak and the media jump. Liberals speak and... nothing.

... the nomination process is over. I used to like and respect Hillary Clinton very much. When she first ran for Senator of New York, I was happy and looking forward to the day she would run for president. I even voted for her in the Vermont primary this year despite the misgivings about her that I'd developed. As the campaign wore on, her desperation made me lose respect for her. This was a politician who wanted to be president for one reason: to make history. I hope, for her sake, she bows out gracefully now, and restores some the respect she had earned as First Lady.

I look forward to the day that I can cast my vote for a woman in a presidential election -- but she needs to be someone I respect and trust. In recent weeks, that was NOT Hillary Clinton.

Great post, Glenn. I wonder if one reason British conservatives feel free to maintain their own values is that the British system has more than two parties. No one party is ever truly in the majority, so they do not see politics as a game where one side wins and another loses. In this country, Republicans and Democrats stop thinking about their values and only concentrate on keeping a majority. Just a thought.

Let's face it, Obama wants to be president as badly as Hillary did. To that end, he'll do or say anything. Too bad, for a few weeks there I was actually fooled into thinking he might really be an agent of change. But now we know that his courage ends where his fundraising begins.

I've joked about not voting for him, but of course I will. I'll go to the voting booth in November, hold my nose, and cast my ballot for the least objectionable sell-out.

... I haven't seen commented upon, but which I think may be significant, is just how will Obama's young supporters react to his abandonment of his own stated principles? Young voters have been his core supporters. They obviously saw a man who intended to be something different in Washington. Now that he has been revealed to be just as cynical in his actions as the rest of them, how will these young people react? Will they become skeptical of his claims and lose their enthusiasm? It seems to me the Democrats and Obama in particular have calculated that younger voters will turn a blind eye to their actions. I'm not so sure that's the case. And if I am right, they all stand to lose this important base -- not just for 2008 but for years to come.

What a sad refrain that is. All the enthusiasm Obama inspired just a few months ago is eroding into resignation that he's just a politician like all the rest. So, will liberals vote for him? Of course, because, "What other choice do we have?"

When a politician makes the decision to disregard the ideology of the people who most strongly supported him in order to get the votes of the wishy washy center it is just political extorsion. They are saying, "I can ignore your views because you have no choice but to vote for me."

Well, Obama is going to have to do better to earn my vote.