for doing the right thing, and good on Glenn for gently encouraging them, in his inimitable style, to do it.

And to the commenters who are now spluttering that the ADL and Rabbie Hier were insufficiently vigorous in their condemnation, what part of

"shameful"

"outrageous"

"disgraceful"

and "deeply offensive"

do you not understand?

>>>a prompted statement of outrage is still not anywhere close to the spontaneous uproar that occurred after the Move-On ad appeared.

What makes you think it was spontaneous?

As to the ADL, et al, I doubt they were monitoring the Move-On ad contest. I imagine that someone with an agenda contacted them and urged them to comment on it, just as GG did regarding Limbaugh.

Which is not to equate Glenn to the GOP leaders and operatives who managed the "spontaneous" uproar about Move-On. The Republicans were trying to use the Jewish organizations as tools in a campaign to dishonestly smear a whole organization, and by extension an entire political party, based on an arguably inappropriate comparison made by one anonymous Internet user. Glenn was just encouraging those organizations to be consistent and adhere to their stated principles, for which I again commend him.

As Glenn noted in the last update, this isn't about the ADL anymore, it's about our oh-so-liberal media.

I'm hardly an expert on Mary Robinson's career, but I think reasonable minds may differ as to whether she is an appropriate recipient of a high honor from the POTUS. The ADL is entitled to its opinion on the matter, and so of course are you.

>>>Torture is not legal. failure to prosecute (for whatever reason) doesn't make it legal so can the histrionics.

You're correct that failing to prosecute torture does not make torture "legal" in the sense of changing existing law. The law says what it says whether people are prosecuted or not. The point is that, under the Obama/Holder plan as described in the post, it won't matter anymore what the law says. Torture will remain technically "illegal," according to the words written on the papers that we quaintly call "laws," but the government will have the de facto power to torture whenever it wants. All that's needed is a permission slip from the DOJ, and voila ... no worries!

So no, torture won't be "legal," it will just be "totally okay whenever an unethical government lawyer says it's okay." I'd say histrionics are called for.

You poor, poor dear. Oppressed by people who refuse to respect your right to despise them for their consensual behavior with other adults. Forced to watch men kiss ... yucky! Bedeviled by feminists who persecute you with their cruel ... well, you didn't say, but I'm sure whatever they do is super-oppressive. My heart just aches for you, really.

The truth is already out. The only question of significance is whether anyone Important will be held accountable for it. A plan to prosecute torturers, but only for deviating from the torture guidelines provided by the Important people, seems calculated to preclude such accountability.

>>>Well, just to pick some anti-Bush democratic propaganda off of the top of my head: Bush didn't win the election Gore did. How about that Bush was going to suspend the 2008 election?

Really? That's the best you can do? What a pathetic, laughable argument in defense of a perniciously false equivalency.

Given that the 2000 election had to be decided by a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court, the notion that Gore was the rightful winner is, at the very least, defensible and non-crazy. One may disagree, but to call it dishonest or hyperbolic propagands is patently absurd.

As to Bush suspending the 2008 election, please name a single Democrat who suggested this was likely to happen. Perhaps you'll come up with a blogger or two, but I doubt it.

Which brings up the other reason why the equivalence you postulate is so obviously false. When liberals/Democrats are accused of saying crazy or outrageous things, the offender is almost invariably some anonymous person with no influence on anyone, whose comments are publicized by the right for the very purpose of pimping false equivalencies and duping suckers like you.

The vicious lefty who compared 9/11 victims to Eichmann? A totally obscure professor nobody ever heard of. The creator of the ad that no one saw, comparing Bush to Hitler? Anonymous person with internet access.

The man who just called Obama a Nazi? The country's most influential radio personality, who was an honored guest in the Bush White House and operated the preferred public forum of a sitting Republican Vice President.

The lady who just said Obama wants to murder children with congenital disorders? The most recent vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party.

Dude, you have got to be kidding. The problem is folks like you who can't tell the difference between a molehill and a mountain of manure.

>>>That I think that both fringes are equally loony is an opinion to which I am certainly entitled to have.

Here's the point that I think you fail to grasp: the GOP does not have a "fringe." Their looniest ideas are espoused by the leaders of the party.

Again, consider the myth of the "death panel." Bugfuck crazy, right? Again, the leading proponent of this objectively insane idea is the REPUBLICAN PARTY'S LAST NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. And she was just seconded in this madness by the FORMER SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

Sorry for the shrill capitalization, but I'd really like for you to address this. It's not just what is said, but who says it, that matters.

Who ever called Bush a Nazi? (Hint: obscure bloggers, anonymous blog commenters, some unknown person who had an ad posted in a website contest for a couple hours.) Who just called Obama a Nazi? (Hint: A media superstar with a following of 20 million Republicans who is arguably the most influential conservative of the last two decades.)

Do you really not see the difference?