It really is quite sad that Jeffrey Schneider thinks the exchange he quotes supports his argument.

In this situation, I am reminded of the concept of "FUD": fear, uncertainty and doubt. In some situations it is not necessary to convince your opponents of any specific thing, merely to convince them they don't know anything for sure, really, and yet the situation is very risky. This inclines them towards extra cautious choices, and toward seeking ways to limit risk, acting out of fear. Which may serve your ends very well.

Convincing the public that they aren't sure what the truth is, (but it sure seems like there is a lot of suspicious stuff floating around about that Saddam character, and maybe he's responsible for the bad things that we do know happened, seems like a big win for at least one faction of the War Party. White House denials on this story also bolster its pose as a calm, measured party, seeking war as a last result and interested in diplomatic solutions, which we now know was sadly only a pretense. A White House that wanted to convince congressional Democrats that it was interested in using the United Nations couldn't be seen blaming Saddam for absolutely everything.

The disconnect between the Iraq war and any strategic objective is intuitively clear to the electorate. If the American people thought we would get anywhere by 'winning' in Iraq, they'd be more supportive of staying. But it's obviously pointless.

Iraq is not a nation of earnest proto-democrats yearning to create a Western-style secular republic, where Arab Madisons, Jeffersons, and Hamiltons were only held back by evil Saddam. The more we learn about the 'reality on the ground' the more it becomes clear that no amount of American military and ignorance will overcome the factional and cultural contentions that lead to violence and brutality there.

People were willing to stay the course in 1864 because winning meant the preservation of the Union and the resolution of the issue of slavery which had troubled the nation since its founding. People aren't willing to stay in Iraq because winning has no definition, and delivers nothing of value to America. What's the best case? Does anyone honestly envision a day twenty years on when Iraq, free of American occupation, stands as a bastion of stability, moderation and democratic secularism?

Kagan, Krauthammer, et al. sound like children on a beach, loudly trumpeting their success in building their sand castle, even as the waves of incoming tide splash against their feet.

The ABC wording is fairly vague. Is it clear that the officials were talking about anything other than the records they have already compiled on Cho himself?

I'm certainly (sadly) willing to believe that the Feds would have no compunction about abusing their access to a system of drug databases that I find reprehensible and scary, but I don't find ABC a trustworthy source, for reasons Glenn has articulated.

I acknowledge that the phrase "the sources say theirs is a reasonably complete search" suggests they were using the drugs database access, but, hey, it's ABC, and we know what their sources are like.

It amazes me (still!) what some people will consider credible. Is there even evidence that Gaubatz was in Iraq at all? His story seems to be that some guys drove him out into the desert and showed him something that they said was a WMD bunker. Perhaps Mr. Gaubatz would like to invest in some choice real estate I have? I have prime properties both in south Florida and in Brooklyn.

I can't quite understand why Ms. Phillips misses the obvious cause of "the collapse of traditional British identity", which was the decimalization of the currency. It's been all down hill since then.

But what can you expect from someone so gullible as to believe that transparent "they moved it to Syria" fable; any analyst worth their pay knows that's just a cover story concocted by Castro, who hired Elvis and the second shooter from Dealey Plaza to organize the transportation of the WMDs to their current location, Bat Boy's cave.

Thank you for a glimpse back into a world where 'quaint' concepts like free people in a free society meant something, and where the idea that the American people had a right to know what its military was doing was being defended so articulately. It's refreshing to get a reminder of someone with a true democratic spirit - Halberstam knew that high office and power didn't make them any better than he was, a free American, with the right to ask what was being done in his name.

Gosh I miss that country.

Repeatedly we have been told that these reporters have been passing along information from sources in whom they have confidence. But we never hear why they have confidence in them, and given the quality of the information, we have to doubt the judgement of the reporters for trusting them.

All too often it seems clear that there was no skeptical evaluation of the source, no conscious decision to 'trust' this source at all, merely a passive acceptance of their authority, and with it an unconscious acceptance of the trustworthiness of their source's sources. It seems to never occur to them that, even if their source has never lied to them, someone may be lying to HIM.

The topsy-turvy nature of our modern media was painfully clear to me this morning when, on a morning radio news program, they played sound-clips from the most incisive interview with John McCain yet, which was done by comedian Jon Stewart, on a comedy entertainment program.

Why is it Jon Stewart who responds with informed, pointed questions to McCain's bafflegab, not one of our 'reporters'? Why is the news being made on comedy programs?

(And while we're at it, why was McCain's 'joke' about bringing Jon an IED to put under his desk supposed to be funny? IED's aren't a joke. It was like McCain said, "I brought a gun to shoot you dead with. Ha-ha." Chilling.)