And yet, like the gentleman from Brookings, Glenn has said repeatedly....

That he doesn't know exactly what was done. But he's ready to "hang" Bush anyway. You have to love it. Judge, jury, and executioner, at the ready even if no one knows what happened

As Ioakannen explained, Bush himself admitted to violating the FISA laws. Other than that, however, the Congress and the American people have not been able to determine exactly what the Executive Branch is up to. The America that I learned about in civics class was based on transparency and on oversight by the various branches on the other. Not being able to find out what, why and how the Executive is operating does not fit this model. This, combined with admitted law breaking, is what concerns people like Glenn. (You know, people who care about laws, the Constitution, etc.)

I know you don't care about facts, but others out there might.

One truly wonders what the point of all this destruction and death was all about. We are moving inexorably closer to an exact replica of Saddam's regime.

-- psyberdawg

That's the heart of it, isn't it? I believe the point was that Saddam was no longer going along with us, so we got rid of him. Then we could use Iraq, rather than Saudi Arabia, as our base for further operations, against Iran, Syria, et al. The Saudis were getting uncomfortable with our bases and we wanted (and want) to keep the Saudis happy, so we moved the bases out of S.A. and into Iraq. From there we begin our war of Transforming the Middle East. We don't really give a shite about who rules Iraq or what he does to its people, so long as he is compliant with U.S. hegemony.

I believe it's that simple. All the other reasons given are either obfuscatory (democracy, WMD) or fringe benefits (oil).

On to Iran!

Our assessments are based on our observations as well as on years of study. That experience creates networks of colleagues such as military officers whose off-the-record insights can inform ours and who in the past have often told us when they did not think their strategies were working or could work.

We're experts, therefore we're experts. Trust us.

The group includes the most senior Sunni cleric, Al Sistani, and the Senior Imam from the Baathists. It's a real summit with real power. Hopefully the full article will emerge from behind the suscriber wall.

-- shooter242

Dear shooter, they were making fun of YOU for calling Sistani a Sunni. Which you did.

Of course, people here would be exceedingly happy if peace were to break out in Iraq. What you don't seem to understand is that most of us are very wary of Rah Rah articles authored by obfuscationists which are then published in the WSJ. We'll take the "good news" with a barrel of salt, please.

By the way, since we can't see behind the WSJ screen, did the article mention that one of the key participants is a LaRouchie?

You might disagree with Rep. Paul's stand on abortion and the Fed Reserve, but he hardly comes across as the neo-nazi you are trying to paint him.

I've recently announced to my colleagues at work that I've decided to go back into the closet . . .

not because I'm worried about them thinking I'm gay. I just don't want to be mistaken for a republican.

"Private sexual behavior" becomes relevant when the person in question goes out of his way to trumpet his "family values" and condemns others for the others' private sexual behavior.

That said, any person in power caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom -- gay or straight -- is fair game for ridicule.

It's much more fun to talk about hypocrisy in government officials instead of this stuff.

A few months ago I contacted my Dem. Senator about my objections to going against Iran -- he replied, "Iran threatens Israel and is a threat to world peace." OK, so then I contacted my nutso right wing Rep. Representative, who told me that "Iran has directly threatened the existence of the U.S. and Israel and must suffer the consequences."

I know you don't like defeatism, Glenn, but boy am I close to it on this issue. I just don't see much hope.

...aside from the fact that a strong Iran, especially one with nukes, threatens Israel's hegemony in the Middle East, why does any American have a hard on for an attack against Iran? Why does Iran get our backs up so much? Why do we care so much about them?

I've heard a lot of "we must attack Iran" types explain it's because of the 80s Iran hostage crisis, and the fact that they think Iran was involved in the Beirut bombing. So Iran has to be paid back for humiliating and killing Americans. But, again, leaving aside the fact that the Iranians were pissed off about various serious American misdeeds against Iran, not to mention our having shot down a civilian air craft, these "atrocities" committed against the U.S. by Iran happened 20 years ago. Most Iranians alive today were either not even born 20 years ago or were kids. So why avenge such old sins?

Any anti-Iran peeps out there care to explain?

I thought this was a really good idea, so I wrote to three presidential candidates. I told them they have special access to the media, and that we need to borrow that access now. I implored them to go "off message" over this weekend and speak out against war with Iran. I told them how worried my Iranian-American friends are. I asked them to speak out before it is too late.

Thanks, Retired Military Patriot, for a great suggestion.

-- ondelette

Ditto. Maybe they aren't as beholden to AIPAC and the Armaggedonists as my reps. are. Although Obama has Dennis Ross, an Israeli stooge, as his Middle East advisor.