I can understand your reasoning but I will add that the one thing I think we can all agree on is that the call from Afghanistan never took place and is in fact a fabrication.

Whether the words Mukasey used to describe the phone call can be recast to plausably allow for the phone call's lack of reality strikes me as being as consistent with arguing what the meaning of is is.

If the phone call was intended as a rhetorical device, then there certainly was a lot of energy put into fleshing it out, including choking up over the consequenses of failing to intercept the non-existent phone call.

In short, even if your analysis is correct, then Mukasey is still a liar and the story is still important.

I know, but it does remain important that whenever cracks appear in the otherwise impenetrable wall of disinformation, that we get busy with our crowbars, prying apart the particular misstatements.

Certainly John McCain's inabilty to keep the Sadr Militias separate from Al Qaeda in his mind, (an error he repeated today, referring to Al Qaeda as Shia) represents another example where repeated hammerblows are called for in order to pound the truth out of an otherwise complicit media.

It's called "If"

"We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house "

If the sentence had been led with "If" then it would be hypothetical, hypothetically.

But it did not start with If. It did not even start with "We believed" It started with "We knew".

I may not know much but I do know how to parse English...... and spot a liar.

I'm not so sure.

I have it on good authority that Mukasey is capable of breaking 100 bowling lefty even though he normally right handed. Obviously someone who clearly resembles so many other average American bowlers could not be expected to remember whether that story he heard regarding the phone call from Afghanistan appeared in a NIE or the National Enquirer.

There is, after all, only so much time in a day.

They are desperate to wash their hands of that which they enabled so they can pretend they never did.

But the people who caused and enabled that to happen are -- understandably so -- desperate to avoid acknowledging what they've done

http://phd9.blogspot.com/2008/03/deifying-military.html

This new post accords well with my thoughts as I was driving to work this AM. As I mention in the linked post, agressive warfare (or any warfare for that matter) involves engaging in activities that if committed within society rather than beyond it, would be unthinkable crimes. The natural reaction to engaging in this sort of activity would be intense remorse. Therefore the exercsises and rituals we go through allevieting our guilt take significant amounts of energy. The ceremonies we go through on Memorial Day taking special care to honor OUR losses and the special respect we accord veterans are examples of the sort of thing I'm referring to. Even here, many self-identified liberals and war opponents nevertheless go out of their way to make sure that we acknowlege the sacrifice of those who serve.

While there's nothing wrong with this, by itself, I have to note that it creates a severe amount of distortion in our thinking when it comes to determining the best course of action in Iraq. We can't erase what we've already done, but to leave would lock-in the immorality of our prior actions. As long as we stay, there is hope for redemption. It's sad to see happening but we can't underestimate the power of the force I'm describing.

Only Republicans are real Americans.

While theres been a lot of distracting discussion about 'Patriotism' on various forums, the true message that's to be drawn from it is that only if you already accept the premise that the American military is a force for good and is incapable of evil, can your opinion about Iraq matter.

If you operate under the assumption that all men are created equal and therefore all actions should be judged on their actual merits and moral consequences then you are an 'America hater' who can be safely ignored and/or mocked.

George Carlin used to have a routine entitled 'The Seven Words You Can't Say On Television' Today that list would consist of Freedom, Self-determination, Privacy, Equality, Justice, Morality and Peace.

a lengthy and I thoght insightful post about "winning and losing" and how its currently understood only to watch it disappear with an unfortunate keypress.

The short version though is that winning and losing only exist in games. For much of history, warfare itself was set up as a game, begun with a formal declaration of war and ended with a signing ceremony for the terms of surrender. Terrorists don't play by the rules of that game. This leads to a profound misunderstanding of what is in play in the GWOT.

Any talk of victory is deliberate deceiptful.

That a similar challenge could be found here.

http://letters.salon.com/6052770086033fd3d4a87fdac9adbbbf/author/

Just remember that the scrollbar is your friend and the impulse to be a jerk is your enemy.

Peace.

If you're going to invoke evolutionary arguments, then you need to acknowlege that as social creatures, there is more than one role to play in a successful tribe. Has it escaped your notice that the brainiac or wonk is an essential element to any successful group. Certainly the preferred leader is selected on the basis of what skillset is needed at the time.

I'm reasonably sure that 8 years of ignorant bluster has changed the perception of the best tools we need today.