Like, why the US has screwed the pooch so badly internationally if this attitude is common. Human rights should never take precedence over security? Did it occur to Tim that without human rights, security is NEVER assured? That you can't always make things safe, no matter what you do, but if you treat people like crap, you best believe you won't be safe sometime in the future?

I'm amazed to see such a ridiculous position on Richardson's answer. When did the neocons take over this mag?

What a disappointing comment, Mr. Grieve.

The very concept of human rights means that they are absolute rights that we don't violate. This is the sort of thing War Room rails against Bush for all the time. Richardson was absolutely right to say so -- there are certain lines we don't cross because we have determined that crossing them makes us war criminals, makes us reprehensible, makes us less human. There was a time when many of us believed our insistence on basic principles was what made America great (and safe). Obama was correct to point out that the two are complementary, but good for Richardson for having the courage to say the truth.

What has our nation come to that the liberals are criticizing a candidate for defending human rights?

This is incredible. The question Blitzer asked (my italics added) was, according to War Room: "What you're saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security?"

One can imagine Hitler and Stalin answering in the negative, but who else?

Glenn Greenwald, help! Even your own magazine now thinks that human rights should always take a back seat to "security"!

Joe Biden was the only candidate who gave an answer that makes sense. The electorate is fed up with gender bias questions...Obama and his almost frantic effort to impress the audience of how well informed he is...Richardson's gaffes...John Edwards and Hillary in each other's faces...and the moderator's trying to egg them all on.

When it comes to Joe Biden he knows what he knows. The population is worried about mortgage foreclosures, jobs, kids schools, drug dealers, medical expenses and will grandma end up in an ill-tended nursing home.

CNN----we don't care if Hillary prefers diamonds or pearls. We don't care about the rigged debate sponsored by the "most honest network".

Hell, I don't like the self-promoting Lou Dobbs and his stand on immigration which he is trying to use to run on a populist-Independent ticket for prez.

I don't even know if I like Anderson Cooper.

But I DO like Joe Biden. Go Joe!

Maybe it didn't occur to you yet, but for the "blogging class," the Thanksgiving holiday week started today about 2:30 p.m. eastern time.

The reason, most likely, that Tim has not responded is because he has gone off on holiday already. The computer screen saver is bouncing rectangles back and forth across his darkened screen. You are shouting at someone who is not in.

And I will soon follow. Happy Turkey day. Hope Denver gets that snowstorm on Thursday. Time to get out the boards.

I never subscribed because, while I enjoy reading and posting from time to time, I still don't feel the strong counter balance to the MSM and the Corporate politicians, ie Hillary, Rudy, Mitt, etc. Perhaps it is also because I support a real alternative, Dennis Kucinich, and he is given short shrift here because he is not considered a "serious" candidate because of his numbers. What separates the real alternative from the main stream is that they usually don't have the numbers. I know you have to make a living, but that is the argument of most of the candidates: we have to raise money wherever we can, holding our noses all the way. I probably live in a bubble of fantasy, hoping for a better response, but I am learning to accept that principle does not always equal popularity. Dennis speaks truth to power and stands for issues; Hillary tests the wind and dances to the tune of the corporations and power brokers. And, Salon seems to support her. So, I will never subscribe while the present policies remain. As for those who are complaining and subscribe, speak with your wallets/purses and cancel. You can always renew when things get better.

peace,

st john

Doncha just love it when the top editors here fail to respond, even when everyone who posts disagrees with them. No defense of their position, no justification, no "good points raised."

Just silence. Just like the MSM.

Makes me think Salon is really hitting the big time.

Way to go, all. Maybe you can get a sit down with Darth or the General. Maybe get an invite to the Very Serious Beltway Journalizers cocktail party and really get Interactive. The first step to making Kool Kid Media Star is forgetting there are actual people reading.

Yes, Tim--

We are beginning to get the feeling that your are ignoring us. We really need to hear from you about this National security/human rights thing.

So we should unequivocally support the Palestinians in their fight against Israel, right?

Before the Iraq war, there were Iraqi exiles who were lobbying for us to take action against Saddam. Hell, for the past fifty years there have been Cubans lobbying for us to take action against Castro. Or do exiles not count?

I don't think we should be occupying Iraq either. I think if the neocons had truly been serious about rebuilding a stable democratic Iraq, the Bush administration would have taken the United Nations up on their offer to assist us in rebuilding efforts right after the fall the Baghdad. Of course, the Bush administration wouldn't do that because the far right despises the United Nations. But if the reconstruction had been under the aegis of the United Nations, it would have gone some way towards taking an American face off of the occupation, and would have undercut the notion that it was a purely war of colonial imperialism. I think the whole "democratizing Iraq" proposition would have been dubious of success in any event, but we chose the absolutely worst way to do it, if that was indeed the purpose (as is avowed).

One of the miscalculations that the Bush administration has consistently made is to believe that, given the chance, the democratic process will inevitably produce results consistent with the values of Western democracies. We have seen that that is not always the case.