Instead, we need to move forward and Obama needs to stand up to the left. This is another brilliant Sister Souljah moment...

Do these high-level people sit around in foreign policy briefings and say, "Yeah, there's no nuke program going on in Iran but Bechtel, Chevron, and Halliburton have been chomping at the bit to get in there. So you know what to tell the press."

"So what's the justification for Obama's inflammatory and obviously consequential (though seemingly baseless) claim on national television that the Iranians "are pursuing a nuclear weapon that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race" when the consensus of American intelligence agencies is that they are not doing so?"-Glenn

One can't help but feel uneasy with what appears to be compliance on various fronts: not holding Bush Admin accountable, caving in to certain hawks on Iran threat, telecom immunity, and corporate/military appointees to cabinet and other Bush enabling stances.

As you pointed out many times--the proof is in the pudding, once Obama takes the reigns.

Still, I do get suspicious and queasy every time it appears Obama is giving away the store?

The neophyte--Barack may have seen the stark reality of power in the hands of forces inside the White House and military to which he is obliged--or else.

my opinion of Obama has dropped precipitously in the past several months.

He is jeopardizing the chances of a peaceful solution with Iran *before* he has even become president.

And he is making public foreign intelligence conclusions.. which, if they are based on secret knowledge (briefings) should not be made public yet.

Fortunately, my expectations were just that he would be marginally better than Bush. He can still certainly meet that goal.

I hope.

''What (Saddam Hussein) wants is time, and more time to husband his resources to invest in his ongoing chemical and biological weapons program, and to gain possession of nuclear weapons. The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action."

- Dick Cheney (August 27, 2002)

"(Obama will) end up where Bush is — with the choice of using force or acquiescing to the idea of a nuclear Iran. And he’ll probably be calling Dick Cheney for advice."

- Bill Kristol (January 12, 2009)

"I must say that I shall regret to see the war end."

Gen. George Armstrong Custer (October 3, 1862)

I was going to make a snide remark about post-partisanship, but libertygal got there before me.

More TAX cuts! That's what we need. And more WAR! Now, that's some feckin' Change I can believe in, right? And even More WAR on DOPE!! Gotta talk to Calderon about that...

When massive intentional abuses occur, the detainees cannot be convicted in a proper court of law. That is a simple fact, and there is no other solution that is fair to the People.

So, just to be clear: what you are saying is that, if in the case of 9/11 mastermind KSM, if he cannot be convicted in regular court due to abuses that Bush officials committed, we should just let him go? And THAT is a fair solution for the people of this country? Is that what you're really saying?

To get an idea, one might read Sanger's article in the NYT yesterday (U.S. Rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site). Here is a small part:

But a decision to pull back on operations aimed at Iran could leave Mr. Obama vulnerable to charges that he is allowing Iran to speed ahead toward a nuclear capacity, one that could change the contours of power in the Middle East.

Israel’s effort to obtain the weapons, refueling capacity and permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran grew out of its disbelief and anger at an American intelligence assessment completed in late 2007 that concluded that Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier.

That conclusion also stunned Mr. Bush’s national security team — and Mr. Bush himself, who was deeply suspicious of the conclusion, according to officials who discussed it with him.

You see, that intelligence estimate is dead. It has taken a year, but it has been rejected because neither the administration nor Israel believes it. Or is that the same thing?

My low opinion of research in this article is based on this sentence:"The United States did give Israel one item on its shopping list: high-powered radar, called the X-Band, to detect any Iranian missile launchings."

Suppose a reporter overheard two policemen discussing the getaway car in a robbery. The car was a Toshima Leviathan, which comes with either a V-6 or a V-8. One says to the other: 'Yea, it was the V-8."

The next day, the reporter's article has this line:"The getaway car, called a V-8, was..."

Writing that a radar is called "the X-band" is equally idiotic. Radars have an operating frequency located in one of several bands. They are not named after the band, but the band might be used to denote the radar in some discussions.

So I think that the purpose of this "news" article is to alter public opinion, not present facts. Why bother to know what you are talking about if the facts are irrelevant?

besides himself? He seems to lack core convictions. For example, he has been close to Rashid Khalidi for years and has talked about being more balanced when dealing with the Middle East, yet Roger Cohen complains in the NYTimes that his senior advisors on Middle East policy is dominated by Jewish men and has not one Arab or Iranian American. In addition to this being a bad way to approach this problem, it also shows just how little anyone knew about what Obama would do - or more accurately who he really is. The man is a real-life Chauncey Gardner, a human Rhorschat test.

I'll weigh in. YES. IF KSM was the 9/11 Mastermind, and if we tortured him, he ought to walk. Absolutely. Not a doubt in my mind.

Yes. If he cannot be convicted in a proper court as a result of constitutional abuses, he will go free. What other result could possibly be within the rule of law? Lynching?