This guy sounds like an asshole. There are ways of getting people to do what you want without being such a dick. Frankly, after the jerks in the last administration (e.g., Dave Addington), I really think this is the wrong type of person to be in such a powerful position.

The article actually calls him an asshole. Perhaps there is a more negative label I can use instead.

Obama would not be a doormat otherwise. Besides, isn't this behavior exactly the type of thing that will prevent bipartisanship? Bipartisanship is exactly what this country needs right now (and which Obama has constantly said he would try to achieve). We don't need yet another bully saying my way or else. Honestly, who really would want to work for or with a guy that constantly acts like a jerk?

Glenn,

I tend to agree with your view that the actions of the United States in this war have not been in our national interest. In your interview, however, you seem to support continued U.S. participation in the conflict as a "mediator":

"Well, I think that, for one thing, I think that real negotiations need to ensue, and I think those can only happen with a powerful and devoted mediator, which probably is a role that only the United States can play."

Why should the U.S. even participate to this extent? Obviously, a peaceful resolution to this conflict would be beneficial to our national interests. But wouldn't it also be beneficial to many other nations?

Additionally, what is it that we can specifically provide as a "powerful and devoted mediator" that the EU (or individual nations such as France, Britain, Germany, etc.) can't?

Regardless, our recent actions in the region in the last 8 years probably do not provide us with much credibility in that role.

I am not advocating isolationism but I do think, for national security interests alone, we should have a significant drawback in our participation in this conflict.

Glenn, agreed. And I think the points you make are all the more reason why we cannot be a mediator.

Given the rise of anti-American hatred coupled with our previous actions in the region, the US would not be seen as a balanced and fair arbiter of this conflict.

On a tangentially related note, how in the world does a story where a foreign leader directs a US president to over-ride his Sec. of State get buried in all the major news outlets?

Not only is the account outrageous, if true, but it has got to be one of the worst things for us in terms of national security.

What kind of nitwits in the White House (and press) can't see the immense amount of short and long term damage that something like this will cause?

(Link to story at sig)

Is anyone aware of the reasons and/or circumstances under which the women and teens have been imprisoned by Israel? I have no idea myself, but if they were imprisoned for militant activity, I find little reason why the fact that they are women and teens should be given any weight.

But I'm not sure I agree. It is clear the Times is very careful with their word choice and in this particular instance they do not equate the tactics described with torture. Instead, they construct the sentence so it can be argued that torture is distinct and separate from "harsh interrogation" techniques such as sleep deprivation, solitary confinement, etc. Simply because the Times groups the term torture in the same sentence as those techniques does not mean they are trying to imply equivalence.

Of course, they conveniently do not describe what the alleged "torture" is, allowing them to avoid the charge of using a double standard being made here.

To me, this kind of writing resembles what you would see from an ethically challenged attorney.

First of all, "fantasizing" is a bit harsh.

Secondly, perhaps you're more familiar with journalistic writing techniques and can explain to me why, if the Times considers equivalence amongst torture and the cited techniques they would not simply say, "often subjected to pressure tactics like sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and other methods of torture." Or alternatively, they could have said "often subject to torture, such as sleep deprivation and solitary confinement." By listing them out in the manner they did, it appears that they intended to imply a distinction. Should they have provided a clarification as to what they consider torture? Yes.

Thirdly, I would hardly call what I wrote a "defense" of the NYT. Instead, I was pointing out what seemed to be a disingenuous representation of the facts so they could cover their hide.

If you had waited until you returned to comment on the lack of comparable outrage.

Isn't there anyway we can revoke her citizenship?

I must be missing something here. Glenn, you said,

Last year, after I wrote critically about a well-known journalist who frequently appears on the TV and is considered "liberal," [Joe Klein] emailed me (after first asking me to agree that our conversation would be private) to warn that I should be more "careful" about attacking "allies" if I wanted to expand my platforms and get on television.

and then later on that

Other than things I expressly agree to keep confidential, I'm much more interested in revealing secrets to readers than I am in preserving secrets.

So, given that you told us the crux of the conversation you had with Joe Klein last year, I'm assuming you did not expressly agree to keep that conversation confidential?

Did Joe just presume that you agreed?

No, not a scurrilous shitheel, just someone with poor critical reading skills.