(just saw your response...)

No need to get touchy - I (and I'm sure the others who agree with me) am not talking about "pinning the blame," but basic national responsibility. Avoidance of responsibility is usually the first predicate for slothfulness. Five roommates can all look at the dirty kitchen and each think "I didn't do that, I'm the clean one," and consequently leave it a terrible mess.

This is not about what more could have been done to prevent the invasion. This is not about individual sentiment, as my own acceptance for responsibility despite being vocally against the war shows. This is much more about foreign perception of us, and national identity - we are Americans. For instance, those things that make one feel proud of our country - for me, our ingenious Constitution and resilience as a republic - more often than not are due to others' efforts, or at least a collective effort. This is what I am talking about, the collective country; we as Americans are responsible for all the good, and the bad, that our government does and is.

Being adult, perhaps even noble, often hinges on accepting the burdens of others' follies and misdeeds. We can always blame the electoral college or put a "Don't blame me, I voted for Gore" sticker on our bumpers, but in the end this is just self-satisfying futility. What more could have been done to have prevented the war in Iraq? The better question is what more can be done to fix all that has gone so terribly wrong, in the name of our great country.

Nothing says "I don't care" like saying "I don't care" again and again, eh?

Could everyone just take a deep breath - maybe step outside and see the bigness of the sky, contrasted with the smallness of pride?

Seriously, though, congratulations on another highly topical book.

Chris Matthews a minute ago was caught on the return from a commercial break saying to his panel of guests, "...we're all acting here and putting on shit," before he realized he was live.

Talk about unintentional truth-telling.

Chris Matthews a minute ago was caught on the return from a commercial break saying to his panel of guests, "...we're all acting here and putting on shit," before he realized he was live.

Talk about unintentional truth-telling.

I'm sure someone got it and we'll see it appear on C&L or (hopefully) the Daily Show.

I missed it at first, then rewound the DVR when I heard him apologize later.

What is the average amount of pages of comments before the inevitable infighting over libertarianism or some semantical tangent?

Any guesses/theories?

And then he proceeded, immediately, to ascribe a "motive" to me-- and everyone else here-- for waiting until Glenn endorses a candidate before we will too.

I think it's laughable that anyone would think of Glenn's blog in that kind of sense. I've never known him to endorse a politician (correct me if I'm wrong). The closest I've seen him come has been praise for Russ Feingold - simply as an example of a politician who can take a principled stand on important national security and domestic liberty issues, not as a candidate for office.

A large part of the reason I come to this blog is because it's (thankfully) devoid of the typical, bloviating election discussions. I don't know about anyone else, but Glenn's endorsing a candidate at this point would be like seeing Maya Angelou in a gangster rap video.

LWM: Not that I have anything against taking discussions wherever they naturally go - I'm just bitter that by the time I can actually comment at this blog, the conversation has already moved beyond the original subject into something I usually find much less interesting.

I understand your frustration. Just keep in mind that some people get a sick satisfaction from playing the unfairly-treated-and-misunderstood-blog-victim, and they feed off others' responses.

Just deprive them of the air they need to keep burning like little brushfires. Really, who cares if they get the "last word."

I'm off to bed for another long day tomorrow...

While I am a middle-of-the-road progressive, I don't adhere to the leftist doctrine that Israel is evil.

I don't get that one.

If the US is so betrothed to Israel as several here claim, then why aren't any Israelis assisting the US in Iraq?

False assumptions and equivalency. People of "the left" who criticize Israel's over-representation in United States' foreign policy considerations do not "hate" Israel any more than people who think one shouldn't eat cheeseburgers every day of the week "hate cheeseburgers."

Second, what makes you think that Israel's lack of combat assistance with our occupation in Iraq means we don't have an exceedingly close relationship? The entire premise of our relationship with Israel is that they need us much more than we need them. Sure, they provide us with some degree of Western social/political presence in the Mideast, but the benefits of the relationship are rather skewed to one side, to put it mildly.

Please take a moment to challenge the neoconservative talking points you seem to have wholly internalized.