Linked at sig, John McCain explaining why he wants to kick Russia out of the G8. I especially liked the closing line:

"We want better Russian behaviour internationally. And we have every right to expect it. And I will do what I can to see that they reverse many of the behaviour patterns, which have really been very unhelpful to peace in the world."

Like sponsoring regime change or invading other countries or impeding climate change action?

Ah, the candidate born before radio. Clueless rube? Blind authoritarian? Senile old fart? Regardless, McCain and the movement he leads is the choir the WaPo preaches to. And that probably explains a lot about why Diehl gets published--it provides the illusion of legitimacy for the [Neo-]Conservative Movement.

- And you still have not answered Glenn's questions. Is it because you cannot without your head exploding?

-- druidbros

I saw your similar question earlier. I wondered if I had missed a comment by Glenn in this thread. I haven't, have I?

Are you wondering about this series of questions at the end of Glenn's pre-updated coloumn?

How can a member of an Editorial Page which has endorsed some of the most grotesque abuses and violations of law within their own country -- and which continues to believe that those responsible should be protected and immunized -- possibly continue to parade around as some sort of crusaders for those principles when it comes to others? Who is the target audience that they think they are successfully fooling with that charade? What mental process allows a person like Jackson Diehl or Fred Hiatt to declare that their own Government is exempt from the rule of law and the most basic international norms yet still believe they are in a position to condemn other governments for insufficient regard for the rule of law and human rights?

Short answer: I don't know! I think all of these questions are for the WaPo editors. I wouldn't presume to think for the Washington Post any more than any of you would. (Gives me a headache to do that.) The longer answer is that I don't accept the premise of the entire article; the presumption that the U.S. has been systematically lawless.

the Congressional Democrats must be condemned as well. If Nancy Pelosi had encouraged impeachment rather than taking the rule of law off the table... if Harry Reid would have found time to censure Bush and Cheney, rather than spending it condemning a MoveOn newspapaer ad... if Barack Obama would have led a fillibuster rather than voting for a FISA bill with telecom immunity, then the mass media would have had to cover these events as if they were mainstream, not the actions of a barely existant radical left.

That Washington Post op-ed is only concerned about Russia seizing oil companies. It seems that the 'rule of law' is only invoked when an oil company stands to lose profits. Russia signed a deal with Iran to develop their oil and gas and sell it to India and Pakstan. That's probably why we're suddenly negotiating with Iran.

To sell that oil to India and Pakistn, Russia has to build a pipeline through Afganistan. That's probably why we're about to intensify the war there, to block that pipeline.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/02/19/russia.iran.oil.ap/

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still an evil choice.

True.

Until you have a choice between good and evil it is best not to make any decisions or choices because you not only will encourage evil, but you become evil as well.

Not true. You're assuming choice is always voluntary, and never compelled.

The fact is, if you do not choose the lesser evil, you are necessarily avoiding opposition to the greater evil. This is clearly an element of the strategy of the greater evil.

As long as people keep choosing the lesser of two evils, evil will always win.

Irrelevant. Since you cannot avoid choosing evil regardless of your choice, and regardless of whether you choose or not, your best choice is always the lesser of two evils.

Is it not so? If not, why not?

Nader has his flaws as well, some of them serious. Do you really suppose Nader to be perfect? Is that reasonable or not? I submit to you that if the choice were only between Obama and Nader, choosing Nader also results in the choice of the lesser evil.

Is it not so? If not, why not?

You need to ponder the nature of your binary thinking. It is not a perfect world, and it is not possible to make it a perfect world regardless of any choice you can make. There are only shades of gray, and there is no black and white. Facts do not go away because you resent them.

Let me see if I get your logic:

Premise:

1) Derek chooses Nader.

Conclusion:

1) Derek chooses McCain (if McCain wins).

Who is being illogical?

Does this mean that whomever chooses McCain means they choose Obama if Barack wins? I am not clear how there is logic behind choosing one thing, and yet somehow that choice morphs into another choice...

With your logic, because you chose Kerry, then necessarily you chose Bush. Because anyone who chooses the loser in an election automatically has chosen the winner.

illogical is the spoiler tag. 350,000 democrats IN FLORIDA voted for Bush in 2000. How is THAT Nader's fault? I am sure your logic can figure that out.

Spoiler from the Right

You can check my posting history: I am an ardent supporter of Ralph Nader and any third party choice.

However, when a republican, ie: elephantman, starts pushing, advocating for, and otherwise promoting third party choices in a left of center blog, I am sure that the idea of spoiler starts to make more sense to me.

I know a few Nader supporters whom I would not be surprised do so in order, solely, to swing left of center voters out of the democratic voting block in order to secure a republican victory. I am not one of them: I whole-heartedly despise republicans more than I despise democrats. I also would not choose a lesser evil over a greater evil, as I would not choose evil.

Even so, when a person like elephantman, an obvious referal to his political position as a republican, if not a paid mole of the republican party, starts to advocate for third party choices, I am sure it is solely to try to swing votes away from the democratic voting block.

I hope I am clear. While I espouse third party voting, I do so out a deep disgust of both ruling parties. Elephantman does so in order to get you to vote for someone other than obama in a sad and pathetic attempt to wrestle a victory this november. Of course, obama is not helping matters by being a corporate tool.

mccain is the greater of the two evils.

-- i_ween

What about the greater movement on a whole range of issues? Real "economic justice"? World de-militarization? International criminal justice, for the Bush Administration? Palestinians' Right of Return? The Global Environmental Crisis? Obama is a corporate tool on all of those issues, which he won't touch.

Why not begin now to develop are meaningful political party devoted to those issues? Bill Clinton ignored those issues, and so did Al Gore in his 2000 campaign. John Kerry was no better in 2004. If there had been a 20% turnout for Nader in 2000 and 2004, Bush would have still been elected, but now, instead of Obama playing to the Washingon political classes, the Democratic Party would be paying serious attention to the left, instead of blowing it off like Cass Sunstein blew off Glenn Greenwald ("I disagree with the caller...")