http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99253486

Jonathan Turley was terrific!

There's usually no shortage of people willing to defend Obama's statements and explain what he really means. I recall, after Obama voted for warrantless eavesdropping and telecom immunity back last August, reading in numerous places -- for the first time ever -- that the FISA controversy wasn't really all that important, that warrantless eavesdropping wasn't much of a threat, that Democrats had no choice but to support this bill lest they lose the election, that nobody will die or starve if the Government eavesdrops, etc. etc.

And everyone opposes torture and wants Guantanamo closed -- but is afraid of the prisoners there. And everyone decries the warmongering against Iran -- but is really scared of the crazies who live there. And everyone decries going to war against a "tactic" -- until the tactic attacks India. And everyone is in favor of world peace -- until world and peace include the Gaza Strip.

Are you trying to bring out all these deep seated fears? What will become of us? Didn't you see the movie Klute?

WHAAAT?

By doing a UTurn on the question of whether Iran is pursuing nuclar weapons?

Are you kidding me?

That fact dramatically changes any strategy and policy dramatically, whether its diplomacy or military.

The amount of trickery should not be "mis-underestimated."

At his last official news conference Pres. Bush said this morning he regrets being 'mis-underestimated.' For the most part I agree - people should never underestimate the mis-underestimated.

I've been trying to pick-up 'clues' as Bush leaves office and he does seem (to me) a bit jittery. A tad uncomfortable ...with the transition and all. But he "really does" wish PE Obama all the best. Transfer of power can be tricky business, i presume.

Personally Glenn, I am going to hold my powder until 1/20/09, approx. 12:51pm est. I suspect then he will only have the Democrats to ... outwit. No small task.

Time being, I shall continue to assume any trickery, any 'bait and switch' going on by PE Obama is being waged for the benefit of ... others.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

bah.

Is it the job of the United States to restrain foreign countries?

Yes.

That's the short answer. The long answer is: yes, so long as the particularly intimate relationship that exists between the US and Israel persists, so long as the US continues to be one of the pillars of the Israeli economy, and so long as the US remains a unipolar superpower.

It may be that Israel and the US have every reason to be connected in the way that they are. There are still more Jews here than in Israel, after all. It stands to reason that we would have a particular friendship, just as the US has with (for example) Ireland.

And just as with Ireland, when the Catholics and the Protestants knew they needed to make peace in the North but couldn't bring themselves to make it happen and we sent Mitchell to do the ceremonial shoving, it seems reasonable to expect the US to have a prominent place in the process by which Israel and its neighbors come to terms with one another.

In fact part of my critique is that this natural role is one that the US is abdicating, quite conspicuously.

It's almost enough to make one think that there are forces in the US that are perfectly content to see Israel's compulsively self-defeating behavior continue until it spirals out of control. If I were an Israeli citizen, frankly, I'd feel rather played.

Brilliant, Glenn, on Update II. I am sure Obama is going to have to backtrack on yesterday's statement. I think he got a little ahead of himself, probably trying to sound security-minded.

Two other points:

1. Like Romero says, if Obama wants to restore America's reputation in the world, then one of the best ways to do this if not the best would be to investigate the Bush administration for authorizing torture (with perhaps some congressional Dems getting caught up in it), misleading the country into war, and indefinite detainment.

2. Obama cherry picks what he wants to look back at. He wants to look back at how Roosevelt and Lincoln said and did things, but somehow, he does not want to look back at Bush criminality.

not to silence the message but to silence the messenger.

Wallaby

Published Letters: 103

The best refutation of your letters are your letters themselves.

I did not say you believed in torture, I said that you argued that a one time grave threat justified overriding the rule of law based on an argued ability to limit the consequences of damage to the rule of law.

Good response otherwise, but I maintain that you still don't quite get my position.

The "grave threat" of KSM or anybody is not my concern, it's that transferring these cases now to US court would be a travesty of justice.

I don't think the current tribunals should go on and neither do I think it is in the interests of justice for people like KSM to potentially get a free pass because the Bushies mangled this thing. We need a third way and from what I've heard Obama say I'm encouraged we might find a just resolution.

I find, working in the criminal justice system, that the law is applied with more elasticity, with an ultimate eye towards serving the interests of justice on a case by case basis, than a lot of the commenters here seem to realize. And yeah, the really bad guys get cut fewer breaks. It's true.

Yes, I'm proposing a compromise, unsatisfying as compromises always are, with some damage to the rule of law, but the minimum (as I see it) possible.

It's always more comfortable to argue for the gleaming, unadulterated principle rather than the icky compromise, but this time I'm for the compromise.

"You can't handle the truth!!!"Life ,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness that is what our constitution stands for.Security and safety are job #1 without that the rest isn't possible.....and the walls keep crumblin down and the walls keep crumblin tumblin.They're having good sales of peanut butter in the midwest it might be good for your Carterfest.