If we abandon ideology and simply run our foreign policy through the lens of self-interest, we are no better than the terrorists who convinced colleagues to hijack plans and fly them into the World Trade Center. It didn't matter to them how many innocent people died. All that mattered is that in their minds the results would help them achieve their agenda.

... about sending a child to clean up the mess he made of his room.

It's clear from the fact that NBC refuses to acknowledge McCaffrey's conflicts of interest that they are fully aware these conflicts are, in fact, a problem. Otherwise they would have notified their viewers about them in the first place and avoided this whole controversy. That they try to wrap McCaffrey in some sort of integrity force field due to the fact that he was wounded in action is pathetic. Benedict Arnold was also wounded -- twice (once at the walls of Quebec in the winter of 1775, and once at the Battle of Saratoga the following fall) -- but doggone it, he was still willing to sell out his country.

... is appoint anyone who could seriously be called a liberal Democrat to his cabinet. So he is either disingenuous when he claims not to care what stripe of the political spectrum someone hails from or he believes that genuine liberals are not qualified to hold posts in his White House. Either way, the next four years are going to be very frustrating for liberals like me, I'm afraid.

... I suspect this trend toward the election of political relatives reflects America's infatuation with brand names. Seriously. We've had it beaten into our bony little heads that brands matter, so is it any wonder, then, that we select a Bush or a Biden or a Jackson or a Kennedy? Nevermind that W is the Bud Lite of political family brands.

Indeed, Glenn, Democrats -- those people whose "side" we are on -- deserve MORE criticism. They HAVE received our support, so we expect more from them. To give them our vote, our financial support and then sit back and say, "Well, we trust you to do the right thing," is stupid. They will do only those things they feel compelled to do, and we MUST COMPELL them.

I'm no historian, but the reason Hitler was able to gain power in Germany, as I understand it, is because of the effects of WWI -- you should have asked Hugh that, given what arose from the ashes of WWI, should we have fought THAT war. Violence begets violence.

Or how about this response: Given that Israel only exists because of the rampant anti-semitism that allowed the holocaust to take place -- anti-semitism in all countries, including the United States -- wouldn't all this be resolved if we had shot any anti-semite?

Basically, any argument that requires as many "what ifs" as Mr. Hewitt used, is sufficating from the vacuum of its ideas.

I hate to think of Barack Obama starting his fresh administration with an imitation of Sergeant Schultz from the old Hogan's Heroes comedy: "I know nothing! I see nothing!" But that's just exactly how I will perceive him if he fails to order investigations into Bush war crimes.

From Mr. Barry's article:

Obama is surely right to think that the verdict that matters most is the one the voters rendered in November. Leave the rest to historians—who surely will collectively judge that the president, Congress, the judiciary (with the public's tacit assent), in a panic after 9/11, colluded to order, do or acquiesce in actions which ill-became a great nation.

First Mr. Barry urges President Obama to reject the rule of law, then he exempts himself and his colleagues in the media from collective responsibility in this matter.

Glenn,

Any chance Alicia Shepard knows exactly how absurd is her defense of NPR's policy on not using the word "torture"? I've read her column a couple of times, and I'm starting to believe that she disagrees with the policy and is intentionally revealing the corruption behind it. Because she just can't be this clueless. I'm not saying that sarcastically. I really mean she couldn't possibly be so thick as to realize how defenseless the NPR policy is, so she's reporting literally how that policy was arrived at so listeners can make up their own minds... which it is clear they have. I didn't see one comment in support of the policy.

... that the five conservative judges on the supreme court are the ones out of the "judicial mainstream"?

I've read Shepard's column a couple of times. The first time I was astounded that she could have posted such lame defenses of the defenseless position of NPR. But on the second reading I began to wonder if her goal was to expose the rotten thinking at the upper levels of NPR management... because that's exactly what she did. I imagine a scenario where she's told she has to toe the line, so instead of making a legitimate argument in support of the NPR position (if one is even possible), she simply quoted management... along with several quotes from others that demonstrated the emptiness of management's view. If this is the case, it would perhaps make sense that she wouldn't want to be interviewed by her, because she'd either have to agree with you or lie.

Okay, so maybe I'm giving Alicia Shepard too much credit, but really, she'd have to be pretty stupid to expect her column to be seen as anything but an expose on the gross mindset of her bosses at NPR.

... that no corporation that owns a media outlet can also employ lobbyists or donate money to PACs or political campaigns.