I got through about the first paragraph of that article, and decided to stop before I vomitted all over my desk.

Beyond the obvious nonsense in the article, does he think that no one's made that argument before? Every right wing pundit in existence has listed "no terrorist attacks since that giant debacle on 9/11 that wasn't really Bush's responsiblity" as the number 1 redeeming quality of Bush's reign. The scary thing about Amity's posts are that there are people who would really say that - that Bush's reliance on his "gut" made him a great president and his willingness to engage in lawbreaking and other detestable acts was something to rever.

Reading that along with Kovie's post about Cilizza and Co., I can't help but wonder if the establishment media is entirely manned by robots who need their software reloaded. Either that or they're all just calling it in. Do they think that repeating the same, tired platitues every day for eternity is journalism? I don't even know if they really care anymore.

When the Republicans figure out some magical way to obstruct the government, and make this drag on a lot longer than you thought it possibly could, remember that I predicted it. We are going to learn a lot about arcane house and senate procedure, you mark my words.

-- Renegade Iconoclast

Neither Obama nor the Democrats should do anything important, since the Republicans will obstruct the efforts. And, really, legislating, leading the country, that kind of stuff -- it's not really worth putting up with a little bit of delay or bullshit from the Republicans. The Republicans are going to love this argument. If they know that no one will do anything under the threat that they'll obstruct, they win. EVERY TIME.

I don't give a shit how long it takes. Delay and obstruction do not, in any way, outweigh the need to prosecute for war crimes. Frankly, I don't understand how any reasonable person could think that was an argument worth consideration.

...Aren't the Republicans going to obstruct any attempt to address climate change?

Weren't hundreds of Guantanamo detainees released under Bush for one reason or another? Why isn't he the Most Dangerous President Evah?

Good use of supporting facts!

-- Baldie McEagle

These RW foamers always reach a conclusion first and decide that any pesky facts/evidence that get in their way shouldn't be trusted. Then they try manipulative rhetorical devices like, "why do you have such faith in SCIENCE anyway. Sheesh! My self-serving opinion is so much more reliable." It's like when elephantman comes in here and goes, "I choose not to believe that" and discusses "his Truth." As if they have the magical power to just alter reality into whatever serves their need (which is usually, as pointed out earlier, playing contrarian to liberals).

ehillesum spent all day saying "two wrongs make a right," or, in the alternative "you started it!" because he's mad that some hoity toity liberal (Glenn) dissed "his guys." In that span of time, all he proved was that he doesn't have any more credibility than the next Limbaugh Worshipper.

I wonder if those bonuses added up to "$70 per hour."

I get some professional benefit from Twitter, and enjoy offerings from Jay Rosen, Ari Melber, Jane Hamsher and Pam Spaulding, to name a few. Andrew Sullivan posts notice of blog updates, also. Otherwise, it's pure entertainment. I get updates from sports teams I follow and read feeds of comedians and some indie musicians I follow along various other celebrity fluff. I also communicate with friends and family. It's all in good fun.

I always understood Twitter to be billed as a social networking site. I never expected anything else. Thus, I remain unconcerned with the fact that 140 characters isn't sufficient for thorough analysis of issues.

After reading the criticisms of Twitter here I'm left wondering why all the angst. What's the potential harm? (That's not a rhetorical question, by the way.) It seems that if you hate it, you just wouldn't use it. Perhaps I'm missing something?

I'm sure when it happens, I'll be all over it. (She says as she drinks Peet's coffee, listens to her absurdly tiny new Ipod shuffle and posts blog comments from her overpriced windows smartphone. I'm perhaps not qualified to even have this conversation. :)

This protest is the funniest thing I've been exposed to in years. Pure comedy gold.

As if crimes are ever NOT prosecuted by looking backwards.

Call me Captain Obvious, but it's pretty clear that these "villagers" are uncomfortable with the fact of those in power in their country being subject to prosecution or, for that matter, any admission that they did anything illegal. That's why it's okay to prosecute non-Americans for torture, but why they want to sweep it under the rug when an American does it. They know it reflects poorly on them, so they'd rather pretend it never happened.

I wish they, and Obama, would just be honest and admit that they're scared silly of the idea, instead of trying to shove this absurd excuse down our throats. The more of them write a column like this, the more transparent they get. It's like one of them came up with this idea, and the rest thought, "Ooh, that's good. That's how I'm going to justify my cowardice." Either they're all morons or they think we're all morons.

What is obvious is that they are craven, small and weak.

Really? I would have thought it was the other way around. I am ignorant of how that area of law works.

I think you're right, and Glenn just made an error. I believe that a person is punished more harshly for the intentional act (e.g., vehicular manslaughter [drunk driving] versus murder [intentional conduct]).