There have been extensive post-war searches in Iraq for the mythical WMD; not a trace has been found. BEFORE the war we knew there were no WMD: Scott Ritter, who headed the first UN Inspection Regime in the 90s, said Hussein had been substantially disarmed. Hussein's son-in-law, during a brief period in which he defected from Iraq, told us he had personally supervised the destruction of the WMD. (He later returned to Iraq and was murdered by Hussein.) Iraqi scientists who had worked on the WMD programs asserted the programs had been dismantled.

As Hans Blix asked, "could they have 100% certainty of the existence of WMD and 0% knowledge of their location?"

One can always claim "WMD" (or "Judge Crater" or "little elves with pots o' gold") exist somewhere, but that we just haven't found them yet. One cannot disprove such claims, which is all the Bush administration's assertions amounted to. However, if one is going to take expensive, dangerous, deadly action on the basis of such assertions, one better--one must--have definitive proof or else...stand down.

What would it be called if I stabbed the next person walking by me on the street and claimed as my excuse that I "knew" the person had a weapon and an intent to hurt me?

Murder.

It's become increasingly evident over time, and as highlighed by much of your work, Glenn, that many, if not most of the crimes committed by this administration could not have been effected--at least, not so easily--without the criminal collusion of the mainstream media. This is not merely a matter of "lax journalistic ethics" or even simply a misunderstanding by contemporary journalists and their editors as to the purpose and proper practices of a free press. This is willful, knowing participation in the coverup and misrepresentation of crimes by the government against the American people and against people around the world.

This underscores more than any civics class ever could how essential a free, uncompromised press is to a democracy. The slightest of plunderers will not escape justice if the press works to expose their crimes; but the worst will never face justice if the press actively impedes the disclosure and nature of their crimes, which our press works to do every day.

Glenn is hardly arguing that Ms. Parker's opining should be banned; he rightly points out the hateful and racist thought undergirding her "argument." He rightly is appalled that a major news organ published such trash as if it were respectable, as if the ideas expressed were not despicable. Glenn does this to highlight the sorry state of our present political and media spheres, that such pandering to the ignorant among us passes for "political discourse."

No, Ms. Parker should not be banned; but a respectable newspaper should not publish it. It should remain for the fringe press of the white power hate groups in America to publish such garbage, or for her to publish herself on a personal blog.

I saw the Harlan Ellison doc at Film Forum Wednesday evening and, as a former reader and fan and long-time observer of Mr. Ellison, I enjoyed it well enough. However...the film does rely a bit too much on scenes of Harlan bloviating--understandable enough, as this is what he does and therein lies much of his fans' and enemies' fascination with him--and, while the archival film clips were valuable, particularly the priceless clips of fashion-victim Ellison in 1970 in Marcello Mastroianni shades!, I would have liked to have seen a broader array of not just friends but critics and even enemies having their say. I gather the filmmaker had a low budget to work with, and perhaps could only corral those associates of Ellison's who were within driving distance of Ellison Wonderland, (the author's residence in L.A.), but the lack of more voices, particularly antagonistic voices, leaves us with a limited portrait of the man. I could have done entirely without the cheesy segments of Ellison reading bits of his own work, but these bits were brief enough to endure with a minimum of discomfort.

I think a written biography of the man is necessary, and I hope someone out there is writing or planning to write one.

Glenn,

I may be mistaken, but I read dataguyx's post not as a defense of Obama but as sarcasm intended to convey the point that it has been obvious all along that Obama is just another member of the power elite club, that he is a self-serving politician through and through whose words and actions do not correlate.

I think it's undeniable that Obama is already compromised--as is, to varying degrees--anyone who makes it this far in a quest for the Presidency, but one can make distinctions between candidates, even those plugged into the same corrupt system of quid pro quo favor-granting and cronyism. Those who expect Obama to be a messiah who will effect radical changes in our political system or in ongoing governmental policies are sure to be bitterly disappointed, but he is clearly a better choice than McCain, and voters should make their choice based on a sober appraisal of the real differences between these (or any) candidates, rather than with a starry-eyed hope for political miracles. If for no other reason, I will vote for Obama simply to cast a vote against McCain, and as a vote intended to block any McCain-nominated jurists from filling the Supreme Court, as we can be sure there will be vacancies to fill there in the next four to eight years.