@ Susan Wood

The comparison to Bush the elder and Somalia is not really fair. At that time there was tremendous pubic pressure on that Bush Administration to do something to stop the starvation and other suffering in Somalia, and there was a pretty broad perception that the U.S. Military - fresh off its success in the Gulf War I - could easily manage a limited mission in a poor, benighted failed state.

It is possible that when Bush 41 eventually did overcome his reluctance to go into Somalia, he took into account that it would not be his problem for very long, but I think you would hvae to be overly cynical to believe that kneecapping Clinton on the way out was his hidden agenda. Now as to what motives Bush 43 might have in attacking Iran, I am far more cynical.

Yup we're definitely going to bomb Iran tomorrow morning, or the one after or sometime in deep dark distant future. Absolutely at some point before the sun explodes in the next 4 billion years. Yup.

I sent him a letter this morning telling him that after the fables - sorry serious reporting - on Iraq I doubt his stuff. If he wants to be credible he had better name names in this Admin: who are these sources, etc, etc. Basically I called his bs. Will he answer? Doubt it.

The media is in disarray. Segmented into hundreds if not thousands of microsegments, there is no outlet that maintains broad credibility across the geographical and sociopolitical spectrum. The 24 hour news cycle creates a void in need of filling, and it is done so with entertainment and distractions.

Even the progressive bloggosphere has a lens through which light bends towards the choir converted. The citizenry are not served by the endless scribbling and documenting about the outrageous crimes of this administration. We are ankle deep in smoking guns, yet their power is absolute because Cheney learned the one lesson of Watergate -- own the DoJ and all action will be blocked.

What many of us in the center-left want is a "Woodstein" WaPo moment circa 1973, the unearthed trail that leads to a discredited end. Yet editors and producers see their media in paradigm shift, and are more interested in self preservation and "balance" than any semblance of a Jeffersonian concept of the press.

It is an ultimate gamble of the Congressional leadership to bank on the elections to right the ship of state, a spineless response to a national catastrophe of epic proportions. There remains enormous untapped power in the 1st branch, and the refusal to do anything substantial is a disgrace.

So the scribes write on, and jaws flap away, documenting the moment, sure that they matter. Sy Hersh disclosed the plan to hit Iran two years ago. It's going to happen anyway. The press, from all the pandering and propagandizing to praiseworthy criminal disclosures is increasingly meaningless because Congressional inaction allows these psychopathic morons to continue to lead us off a cliff.

By now, the public should be very, very skeptical of any and all "news" articles that appear in the New York Times touting a Threat from Our New Enemies. The Times (and Michael Gordon in particular) should have no credibility in the public eye on these issues at all. They have blown it so badly and so consistently over such a long period of time, that whatever appears on the front page with Michael Gordon's byline should be instantly discounted and discredited -- simply because of the history of this paper and this writer with regard to the topic of Threats.

Why the qualifiers?

How can you believe a single syllable of any story in the Times now that you know they will lie about the most serious subjects?

It's "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome, you cannot believe what a known liar is saying, even when they are telling the truth.

How about a critical review of Russert's "journalism" including how he covers senior administration officials?

How many times are these people going to be allowed to start another unnecessary war without charges being brought against all of them????? Which includes those reporters that simply accept the Administrations version of events without ever checking further. They should all be hauled before the War Crime's tribunal for the last war they casually started. The neocon's are quick to start a war that other people get killed in and a hapless country becomes a vast wasteland. They are even quicker to squander the taxpayers money abroad. While hurting American's do without here at home. Yet no one demands that they be held responsible for the death, destruction and mayhem they cause! This is the exact way the Iraq War started with unsubstantiated claims being made of everything from Saddam being responsible for 9/11 to WMD's. What has happened to us as a nation?????? When a loose cannon like Bush pushes the right buttons to do his nefarious deeds. And people follow blindly behind in lock step never once offering to question this man's wisdom or motives. It reminds me more of Germany in the 20's and 30's than it does the US in 2008!

@ Electro Robot

At no point did Glenn contend we are going to actually bomb Iran, though that is not beyond the real of possibility given the current lot in charge; The post was about the recklessness of the New York Times and its scrivener Gordon.

As the end of the Bush usurpation comes happily nearer I am becoming increasingly hopeful that he will leave office without having Bombed Iran, and that the whisperings to Gordon that might suggest otherwise are merely a reprise of the tactic of scaring the electorate into voting Republican. But I have misoverestimated Bush & Cheney before.

--

What would the United States do if, say, France were to invade and occupy Quebec in the name of helping the French speaking population there?

I am thinking a lot more would be done than to support a few armed Vermonters crossing the border.

Why did my spellcheck chage "fecklessness" to recklessness"?