If you recall not two months ago we were all informed that General Petraeus and the military brass were soldiers- non-political types that shouldn't be subject to the type of scrutiny reserved for partisans with an axe to grind. One would think the self-evident antipathy Boylan has for Greenwald and other war critics, to say nothing of his loopy behavior and ethical bearing, would bear on that fatuous assumption, don't you think? Boylan the individual is anecdotal evidence of our country's professionalism and civility gone off the rails. More pertinent though is the degree to which his existence is manifestly at odds with the story line that has the country at large under the impression we're 'winning' in Iraq, whatever that is supposed to mean, more than four years, thousands upon thousands of lives and billions upon billions of dollars since Bush unilaterally launched the debacle.

Not a single politician or power broker has been held to account for the immensely damaging failure that is Iraq (Rumsfeld perhaps on tactics, but no one for the misbegotten policy itself). Not one. Meanwhile the politicization of the entirety of the executive function (most importantly the military and law enforcement, but across the board) continues apace. It's long past time to start considering these things a big deal.

Rape is a violent act, sex is not. When this municipal judge next starts thinking, he ought to think better of it.

For once I could not disagree more with Glenn. A heretofore non-existent official action by Congress repudiating administration positions of unlimited executive power and torture is precisely what is called for, (and feared by the Bush administration, and especially it's nominal chief). Right now the only power Congress has over the executive is political. The executive refuses to honor its subpoenas, (which Congress has accepted with a whimper), merrily obstructing its investigations with impunity, while refusing to bargain over 'emergency' funding decisions for troop deployments- giving the Democrats the appealing choice of cutting off the funds of American servicemen and women at war or signing onto its corrosive policies.

Congress only tool is its pulpit, however diffuse, and these confirmations are an excellent way to bring these issues back into the public consciousness- especially in the midst of a presidential campaign that is beginning to get significant air time. That quite frankly is the ONLY real power it has- its ability to humiliate the administration. As that goes, bad as Bush's approval numbers are, the Democrats have not done nearly enough in the way of putting him and the administration away- if anything, they've ceased making his disastrous tenure as President an issue as they look to 08.

Their folly in that could not be made any more evident than by the fact that all of the candidates for Republican nominee have adopted his policies wholesale. It is really only when the Democrats starting rhetorically pulverizing the Bush administration with regularity, and when those punches are landing square, that Republicans will consider cutting losses and backtracking on their positions. Short of that we will clearly not see any of these abominations of policy and belligerence toward foreign countries rolled back, possibly even under a Democratic President, (given Republican skill at that game and the routine of Democrats backing off their positions tail between legs).

Should the Democrats decline to confirm Mukasey, from a PR perspective, it will be a big loss for the administration. Granted, I don't disagree with Glenn- it won't mean anything prima facie. But in the rough and tumble power politics in which these Mayberry Machiavellis operate, losing the mob is losing everything.

Brilliant Glenn. And the Ron Paul post was also an exhibition in virtuosity. Were only political discourse as decisive as boxing...

Glenn,

You might be interested in this parallel from a completely different realm, (the abstraction can be wonderfully illuminating):

http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2007/11/wsj-on-merrill-how-did-this-happen.html

Three conditions appear to be in place:

1) slothful reporting

2) anonymous sourcing

3) huge and uninvestigated potential conflicts of interest

Another take on 1) could be journalists that are either dishonest or have rocks for brains.

Also illuminating, there is one notable divergence between this and Time's shenanigans: the grounds for legal liability for material financial damage from the WSJ story was massive, especially under present circumstances. That meant an appropriately unhedged, non-weasely correction followed quickly. Were that we could find Time liable for their contribution to the demise of the American Republic, and the attendantly galactic monetary damages.

Someone should write a book: Cause and Consequence- Journalism and the Demise of the American Republic. Chapter 1, Time magazine.

Not me though. I'm much too slothful.