As a regular reader and infrequent contributor to this comment section, I'm glad to hear that you'll be throwing out more of the trash in here, Glenn, although I'm sorry you have to do it. And I want to point out something that I assume Glenn already knows: the bigger problem is not the trolls but the regulars here—those who often have smart things to say and who agree with Glenn—who engage the trolls long past the point of reasonable discussion, start their own little pissing contests among themselves, and act as the discussion's self-appointed policemen. Trolls are obnoxious by nature; let's please confine the obnoxiousness to them.

I'd like to give those quoted in 2008 the benefit of the doubt.

-- 7:04 am

To be clear: I'm NOT giving those quoted the benefit of any doubt.

-- 7:14 am

I hope you'll take this in good humor, because I agree with the content of your posts, but those two subject lines together were pretty damn funny.

Rather than "reflects", it could and should be argued that the WP sets the Washington agenda. It's the lingua franca of political discussion. The WP establishes the memes that dominate the larger culture's political discussion.

I disagree. The last sentence here may be correct, but that doesn't mean that the WP sets the Washington agenda. The emoluments that Washington politicians primarily respond to don't come from the media; they come from the most powerful interests, so that's where the Washington agenda originates, and the political discussion follows those interests just as surely as the Washington agenda does.

That's an interesting theory, but I disagree with this: "There is only one situation in which nuclear weapons could be used offensively: when only one state in the world possesses them." There's another possible situation, and that's when the nuclear arsenal of the attacking country (and its allies) far outweighs the nuclear arsenal of the target (and its allies), such that the attacker has the nuclear ability to completely annihilate its enemy but a counterattack would only inflict damage.

As a result, I agree that there's no danger of Iran actually using nuclear weapons if they were to acquire them, because that would mean self-annihilation. Neocons want us to believe that Iran would do it anyway because they're just so darn crazy, but fortunately the rest of us recognize how stupid that belief is. However, it's still possible (certainly from a theoretical standpoint) that the U.S. or Israel could use their nuclear weapons offensively because they've calculated that the damage inflicted from a counter-attack would be sustainable.

In other words, it's still possible that nukes could be used offensively, but the danger comes from the established nuclear-armed countries, not the fledgling ones. And the best deterrent to that is evening out the balance of nuclear power, which of course is what you endorsed.

So put them on trial, then! Broder explicitly argues against this, not because he believes their guilt to be questionable but because he believes it doesn't matter whether they're guilty or not, just because they're public officials. The legislature absolutely decides what's illegal and what's not, even for high officials. The fact the the judiciary decides who's guilty is irrelevant to whether or not high officials should be free to commit crimes in office—free from investigation, even.

There are things duly elected and legally appointed officials can do in our name ... that we cannot do, and that they cannot do when not in the capacity of their offical responsibilities

But the only reason this is so is because the law decrees it to be so. They're allowed to do these things as officials because the law explicitly authorizes them to do these things in an official capacity. That's not what we're talking about here. Broder and company (and you, apparently) believe that political elites can do these things even when the law prohibits them in any capacity.

So, even though you are trying to undermine the point, in fact the point you raise is a valid defense for SOME actions. Actions that are illegal under any circumstances and by any actor for whatever reason would NOT fall into that category.

But those are the actions we're talking about: actions that are illegal under any circumstances and by any actor for whatever reason. There's no excuse for committing those actions.

So, who decides?

The duly elected legislature, you fool! It's all right there in the statutes.

Someone earlier suggested this and I'd like to repeat it: Broder and his ilk don't exactly believe that political elites should be free to commit any crimes; they believe this only about crimes committed in the official course of duty. That explains why they would support prosecutions of Clinton and Nixon but not Bush—neither poking the intern and lying about it nor breaking into the opposition party's office have anything to do with actual presidential duties, in the view of Broderites, and so those crimes should be prosecuted, but the crimes of the Bush gang did, and so should be excused. If one of the Bushies had gotten drunk and driven over a pedestrian, I think Broder would have considered it a crime, but if the same person had shot a random person dead on the sidewalk and claimed it was a supersecret national security matter, then no crime.

This isn't any less disgusting, of course, but I think the difference clarifies something about the fear and the longing for despotism in the hearts of people like Broder.