Interesting bit about Duley's previous name.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/05/AR2008080503747.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008080503796&pos=

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5icCsDXbi3Yojuvo5W4j01VxWio0wD92CFQ1O0

Great work from Glen and the Salon readers!

Maureen Dowd's formulaic columns are so lame and predictable, they wouldn't pass muster at most student newspapers.

Her continued employment at the New York Times can't be rationally justified any longer. I've often wondered what it is that she has on Pinch Sulzberger. It must be something big, because her snarky, inane, and incessantly tedious writing style is so laughably horrid that its prominent placement in the nation's newspaper of record can only rationally attributed to Pinch's fear of what she might expose if her contract was terminated.

Advice to Pinch: We NYT readers have suffered enough; fire Maureen; even if she makes freaky allegations, nobody will believe them. Maureen Dowd lost her credibility and her sanity decades ago.

Well said, PL101.

I liked John and Elizabeth Edwards. I still do. John fucked up big time on a big stage and he's going to pay the consequences for it.

I enjoyed Justin's story about Rielle's background, but I was surprised by the variety of reactions from Salon readers to it.

Rielle, as presented by Justin, seems to be a like a lot of people I know. She did a lot of the same kind of stuff many of us have done (booze, drugs, parties, sex), then channeled her energies toward more creative and enlightening endeavors. One thing lead to another, then -- boom -- here we are reading and commenting.

I'm baffled by the fact that a good deal of the commentary here seems sanctimonious and oddly derisive. The hostility is hurled multi-directionally, aiming randomly at: John Edwards, Rielle Hunter, Justin Jouvenal, and even Salon itself.

Compared to the moral outrages and international crimes that have been committed by the Bush crime syndicate over the past seven and a half tortuous years, the Edwards/Hunter affair should be regarded as, at most, an inconsequential curiosity to those of us who aren't immediately involved in the situation.

Mr. Greenwald,

Once again you have written a piece that eloquently expresses the frustration many of us feel regarding how Israeli crimes are portrayed in the American media.

I, too, am continually dismayed by liberal friends, who, if we were talking about any country other than Israel, would be outraged by the atrocities being committed.

I would like to think the Obama administration will bring a more balanced perspective to our policies vis-a-vis Israel and Palestine, but the preponderance of old AIPAC lobby-ees embedded into the incoming foreign policy machinery tamps my optimism.

Glenn, your columns are the first thing I search for on the internet each day.

All the best,

I, like many other progressives, am saddened by the fact that the Washington Post and the New York Times still refer to the Bush administration’s use of torture as being “harsh interrogation techniques.”

Harsh sounds a little harsh, doesn’t it?

Why not, instead of “harsh,” say they were:

“somewhat brusque,”

“less than always pleasant,”

“fairly stern.”

Even the word, “interrogations,” is fraught with undesirably Kafkaesque connotations.

Perhaps the Post and the Times should abandon interrogations in favor of:

“interviews,”

“q and a sessions,”

“consultations,”

“series of often revealing conversations.”

Finally, there’s: “techniques.”

This word has such a malodorous whiff of charlatan-like chicanery about it that, whenever I come across it, I instinctively ascertain that my wallet is in its proper place.

What’s wrong with replacing techniques with:

“mannerisms,”

“styles,” or

“approaches?”

Thank you, Glenn, for doing what you do.

Here's another suggestion for NYT and WaPo editors.

The term, "waterboarding," is vague.

Call it:

"thirst quenching,"

"lung cleansing,"

"during the break, the guest was quickly escorted to the green room for a breath of fresh air and some water."

You say the verdict, on whether or not these "harsh interrogation techniques" are torture, has not been reached yet.

Yes it has, Mike. We tried and convicted people for war crimes after WWII for commiting these same "harsh interrogation techniques."

After reading some of your comments, I can only conclude that it must be difficult for your brain to get the necessary amounts of oxygen, given the location of your head.