I have quickly skimmed the first memo. It is notable for the casual, detached manner with which it treats unequivocal torture techniques. (It is also notable for the obscene way in which Bybee blindered himself in order to reach the desired outcome. (You handed me carefully selected and misleading "facts;" I will accept each of them as gospel and make no effort to put them in the context the rest of the world takes for granted in order to bless what you do).

My first, naive thought was that now, at long last, the dead-enders will finally have to admit how wrong they have been. That lasted about ten seconds. I quickly remembered that the Bush crowd remains as immune to facts as they were before; these memos will change nothing. Bush was part of their "us;" he shared with the wingnuts their hatred of the same "them;" and no revelation, no matter how horrible, will change that.

My next, less naive thought was about the recent brouhaha about the Homeland Security report warning us against right-wing extremists, and how the Malkins and Becks are asking, in their best faux outrage voices, if we mean them.

Well, Michelle, if you read these memos and continue to stand with the thuggery of the Bush Administration... then yes, we mean you. If you can look upon such unequivocal, grotesque criminality, Glenn beck, and still defend those who enabled and perpetrated it... then yes, we mean you. If, now that the power to eavesdrop without warrant, detain without evidence, and imprison without trial is held by those with whom you disagree, you would still justify the widespread abuse of those very powers... then you should not be heard to complain if the bell tolls for thee.

(Malkin et al. should not be renditioned for their beliefs. I'm certain the ACLU would defend them if that happened. But I, for one, will not lose sleep over her silly paranoia, and there is no doubt in my mind that their incessant calls of "fire" in our crowded theater have done and will do great damage.)

Mike Sulzer

It should be the first recipient of some annual award with some name I am not smart enough to come up with. We need to do better than "The Mike Allen award".

May I suggest that Glenn start giving out The Wurlitzer Prize for Obsequiousness and Sycophancy in Journalism?

(I can't take credit for it, but can't recall at the moment where I first saw it.)

Allen deserves a nomination, but I still suspect Marc Ambinder has to be the favorite so far.

The thing that amazes me about the Mike Allen episode is the Groundhog Day aspect to the whole thing. Glenn and others have been lacerating such nonsense for a while now. More to the point, the perps have been sensitized to the criticism for almost as long -- they KNOW they will get savaged, they know we will hound them into an embarrassing defense or even more embarrassing apology. And yet, today is still Groundhog Day. As will be tomorrow.

I guess you can take the reporter out of the traditional media, but you can't take the traditional media out of the reporter.

But he then confesses that he edited out "the most incendiary parts," including "several ad hominems." So, like a good servant-editor, he first helpfully sanitized the Bush official's smears by making them appear more sober and substantive than they actually were -- by removing all the parts that reflected vindictiveness towards Obama...

I write emails from time to time that include "incendiary parts" and even, perhaps, ad hominems -- emails that I would not want to see the harsh light of national publication. But if I vent about people and things I profoundly disagree with in terms I don't want made public, I limit such venting to friends I know value my relationship with them more than they do the inherent value in the words I share with them -- in other words, people I trust to watch my back.

Which tells you everything you need to know about the relationship between Allen and his "source." The episode is not just evidence of Allen's subservience. It is powerful proof of the level of trust the people Allen claims to objectively cover place in him.

Perhaps the most cutting thing I can say about Allen is that he has earned that trust.

They say a liberal is a conservative who has never been mugged.

I say an authoritarian is a civil libertarian who doesn't yet realize that she has been spied upon.

Epic snark today, Glenn.

it the role of Justice Department officials to make that decision based on purely legal and political grounds, not the role of White House officials to try to interfere for political reasons.

As rancid and ugly as these issues and revelations are, I am actually slightly encouraged at the path we are on --- it may be that we are edging close to the point at which pressure begets revelation begets pressure, and the scandal snowballs beyond the power of the perps to stop it.

Yes we can.

I just read Krugman's excellent piece. And I just realized what the self-important courtiers in the press mean when they say "we" can't afford the distraction of culpability.

As Krugman points out, Justice can investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute even as Treasury (theoretically) rescues the economy, the Pentagon makes war, etc.

But the Washington press corps is utterly incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. If there are scandals to cover, they will stand slack-jawed and transfixed. And if Broder and Gregory and Mitchell are fully occupied by the shiny object of criminal investigation, then how will we ever get by without the je ne se quois -- the dumbed-down, false-equivalented, Drudge-flavored crapification -- that shows that traditional media is paying attention to those other issues?

It is unremarkable that their reaction to evidence of their towering, egotistical incompetence merely cements that conclusion.