few could explain why we should leave Iraq and stay in South Korea. Perhaps there are some who think we should leave South Korea (not the South Koreans, by the way).

You've just answered your own question, at least partially, and don't even realize it. One reason we should leave Iraq and stay in South Korea is because the South Koreans want us to stay while the Iraqis don't. (Tempted to include a "duh" after that.)

Now, there are other reasons we should leave Iraq that also have no relevance to South Korea. The fact that it emboldens our enemies and provides them a cause celebre. The fact that it deligitimizes US action around the world in the eyes of both our allies and enemies. The fact that it costs $8,000/second. The fact that it was ill conceived from the start and doomed to failure.

A little thought, calgodot, and you'll find many questions that you find utterly bewildering do in fact have answers.

Easy. They're both examples of black guys who have succeeded far more than any other black people in an arena that has been traditionally dominated by white men. What else do you think the guy meant?

This isn't major racism, but minor racism. It's how almost all McCain supporters feel about Obama and Woods, I expect.

The unifying theme? These are both examples of dumb campaign underlings. Mostly irrelevant and having little to do with the candidates themselves.

There's more to it than that, unfortunately. There's the GOP's long and well-deserved legacy of racism, which explains why most racists vote Republican than Democrat. This "comment by a dumb underling" fit perfectly into this theme.

Compare that to other comments by dumb campaign underlings, like Samantha Power's comment that Hillary is a monster. Now, if the democrats had a legacy of calling their opponents monsters, then that comment would have been more interesting, in that it fit into an ongoing theme. As it stands, it was just a dumb comment for which she got sacked.

In a world of Mugabes, Gaddafis, Assads and Castros, does anybody really think the U.S. is in that league?

Are you saying that's what we should aspire to? Or rather, are you saying that so long as we're not the worst human rights abusers, then it's all good?

I might be a bit older than you (41), but I can remember a time (humor an old guy for a minute, will you) when this country was supposed to be an example of freedom, democracy and justice for the rest of the world to aspire to. And I can even remember a time when most of the world did aspire to be like us.

Now, it's well documented that when we're not torturing prisoners ourselves as approved by the top people in our government, we're outsourcing that torture to countries who are good at that sort of thing.

You don't refute any of that. In fact, you defend the practice. You make blanket assumptions of the detainees' guilt, based on absolutely zero knowledge, or you excuse the injustice because gosh, it's not our military's job to provide justice, and you carry on with your day.

For years, I have maintained that a person votes for Republicans out of a personal combination of ignorance and personal corruption. I have never yet met a republican who didn't fall into this category. Clearly, your mix is pretty heavy on the personal corruption side. Anyone who can go to sleep with a smile, knowing his tax dollars are being put to work in jamming something sharp under someone's fingernails or pouring gallons of water down his throat until he's convinced that he's dying, is a psychopath. That's you.

Yes, we should be morally superior to our enemies. We are.

You have absolutely no basis for making this claim yourself.

"Not seeing that happening without subpoenas, executive privilege claims and a few trips to court."

I'm afraid it's going to take A LOT more than that before BushCo criminals are actually held accountable for their crimes. I would say, after the subpoenas, the exec privilege claims and many many trips to court, ultimate enforcement of those subpoenas will require an armed team of federal marshals to turn up on the doorsteps of each guilty party to haul them in. That's all assuming that some appeals court along the way (and ultimately the USSC) doesn't decide to just let them off the hook.

When Elephantman cannnot begin to even acknowledge the point of the conversation, but instead attempts to deflect that point by bringing up something else that has absolutely no relevance, that's his way of admitting he's got nothing. Not a very carefully hidden message, really.

Elephant clearly has complete contempt for the rule of law in this country, at least when republicans might be held accountable. Hence, when shown that the administration he has always supported have broken US and international law in a very glaring fashion, his impulse is to say "Hey, look over there!"

How pathetic is that?

One question, Elephant: If your house was robbed, and it turned out the perpetrator was a republican, would you refuse to press charges? Why or why not?

Check the timeline. Congress may have legalized torture in 2006, but the approval of torture as a tactic dates back to 2002. So, no, this isn't political grandstanding so much as enforcing our nation's laws. of course, to a republican, there's no difference between these two things...

...for the best post subject of the day: Krauthammer of The Gods!!!