While I agree with proposals to ask Senator Dodd to read into the Congressional Record the Constitution, the Federalist paper, and certainly holly-go-lightly´s moving letter, it would help if he would read some immediately pertinent material, e.g., the names of donors and amounts of campaign contributions to Senators Rockefeller, Reid, Durbin, and others who support the current legislation, the campaign schedule for Senators Biden, Clinton, and Obama (as well as the whereabouts of John Edwards), and the statements from Senators Graham, McCain, and others protesting torture.

But there is a curious irony at work here; how can anyone oppose some form of negotiated immigration package on the basis of "they broke the law" after voting for telecom immunity? After all, if the telecom compánies break the law and get amnesty why not extend the logic to undocumented immigrants?

USA999

A Michael Bloomberg candidacy is an attempt to tilt the election to the Republicans by drawing off enough of the disaffected vote otherwise going to the Democrats to permit a Republican victory. It enables the Borens and Broders to avoid coming out for a Republican nutcase (after all they are Serious people) yet undermine an Edwards or Dodd. If Clinton or Obama appear to win the Democratic nomination the Bloomberg boomlet may magically wither as Clinton is no threat to their base interests and Obama will be so busy painting himself into a bi-partisan corner he can be finessed at every turn. Bloomberg would play a Nader-type role with similar consequences. It is a great idea if you want to see the Republicans continue to occupy the White House.

USA999

What has been missing from the criticism of the Times´ hiring of William Kristol is the call for "balance". How does adding Kristol to the world of David Brooks and Thomas Friedman somehow broaden what the Times has to offer its readers? Now had the Times added someone like Glenn Greenwald or even Robert Scheer, someone who would have brought a significantly-different perspective to the range of views offered in Opinion columns, that is something noteworthy. To create a guest spot for someone from Al-Jazeera would have been stellar. But to add another neocon voice, one which has a long history of topical inaccuracy and whose primary mission is propaganda, reinforces the notion that Rosenthal is simply creating a sinecure for a friend or assuring another outlet for a disreputable promotor. Neither speaks well for the Times but that appears to be irrelevant to Sulzberger and Rosenthal. Unfortunately that attitude decreases the paper´s relevance to the rest of us. Here´s to McClatchy!

Excellent work on this as it is fundamental to our confidence in what we read and hear about the Iraq war or anything else. It is difficult to imagine NBC hiring Bill Clinton to provide analysis on the Democratic campaign and then proclaim "party ties are not our interest". Presumably NBC would be willing to hire Osama bin Laden to provide commentary on the decline in security in Afghanistan.

Brian Williams' defense of his analysts is in effect a "trust me" argument while he simultaneously gives us reasons to distrust him. In his defense we need to acknowledge he is a news reader, not a journalist, but as he demands respect and credibility we have a legitimate expectation that he earn it. Respect is earned, not bestowed.

To my recollection the North Vietnamese never attempted to retaliate against American interests outside Vietnam. That is, they let us dictate the arena of engagement. There is an irony that we went into Iraq because of Al-Qaeda but assume we can pummel the Iraqis without a response outside Iraq because we have all that neat airpower. Sooner or later there will be a very nasty response, either abroad or here at home, to the fetish of unleashing all things military. John McCain is the proverbial small boy with a (military) hammer; everything is made to be hammered. Unfortunately it will be the civilian population which get whacked.

Memo to John McCain: It's no longer the 1960s, and we are not fighting North Vietnam.

The United States might gain more traction with Iran if it were to sign a mutual defense pact guaranteeing that an Israeli attack on Iran (including suspected nuclear facilities) would be treated as an attack on the United States. So far we have seen little indication Iran plans to attack anyone, but there is a history of Israel attacking its neighbors, including bombing a remote location in Syria last year. Were I a political leader in Iran I would want to capability of responding to, or dissuading, an Israeli attack. A mutual defense pact would provide the Iranians some assurance against Israeli military adventurism undertaken protected by a US military umbrella.

We could then encourage Tom Friedman to spend some time in Iran actually getting to know the country instead of encouraging the US to act as an Israeli proxy.