Hillary's diatribe against some pranksters on the Internet who have a program that makes Grand Theft Auto naughty was pretty repulsive.

While there's good reason for most of us to have Rove on the brain right now, and to ignore this, somebody needs to say:

"Hillary, lighten up." 

The game was rated for mature audiences anyway.  Adults have the right to buy, like and enjoy stupid things without the Federal Trade Commission getting involved.  Where are the pro-freedom of expression Democrats on this? 

This is by no means important enough to send journalists to jail. Miller pursued a story, and it's her job to do so. She made agreements with sources and she has an obligation to keep them. And the same for Cooper. And the same for Time, which shamefully forfeited his notes and records. It really isn't right that journalists are going to jail over this. I don't care if it's Miller or Novak or een Limbaugh. It isn't right.

...his reaction to the London bombing was a pretty forceful call to hit terrorist supporting states, even in absence, I gather, of a direct link to the London bombers.  He's making a general argument about using military force to teach the lesson that Islamic Radicalism, if even tolerated by a Middle Eastern country, will bring bad things down on everybody.

Dan's no neocon and he's no warmonger.  In other posts around this site, I've seen him more likely to argue that we should change the economic system that's at the root of terrorism -- that we should simplify our lives and ween ourselves from foreign oil.  I think he actually limits his own driving in order to practice what he preaches.

It's pretty scary that these terrorist incidents can push western moderates into the pro-war camp.  This post isn't meant as an attack on Dan Wingfoot or even a criticism.  It just struck me that his tone changed and that he's a guy who really likes to think about, and write about, political issues.  Those of us who think we've waded too far into a wartime stance have a big problem if terrorists can draw belligerence from our moderate allies. 

So, we're to find out when the McLaughlin Report airs that Karl Rove was the Plame leak.  Assuming it's true, I gotta ask -- why?  I have a done a lot of stupid things in my life, I've even, on occasion, set myself back when I thought I was one-upping somebody else.  We've all made that mistake.

But, assuming Rove is the Plame leak -- he broke the law, caused a security breach in an administration that's supposed to be all about security, and jeapordized a position that makes him one of the most powerful advisors in the country.  His intention was to discredit Amabassador Wilson, but instead he made Wilson into a victim/celebrity and it's not like the country was shocked to see Plame revealed as a CIA agent, our reaction was, instead, a more predictable "What's a Valeria Plame?"  It's not like we'd ever heard of her before!  As for Wilson's credibility -- it made me think he was even better connected, and more likely to know what's going on than I would have thought if Rove had revealed Plame to be a high school librarian or something.

Seriously, why does a guy like Karl Rove take such an idiotic risk?  Personality disorder?  Did he expect to gain more than he did?

...so a reader here with legal training, interest or expertise will write the definitive blog entry on the O'Connor retirement.

As a passive Court watcher, though, I'm pretty scared.  I just didn't think it'd be her.  Rehnquist is so much more reliably conservative that his retiring and being replaced by Bush didn't seem so scary, even if Scalia gets his largely administrative job as chief justice.

This one really tips the balance.  And Rehnquist will probably have to retire soon too.  Two Bush appointments?  Hope nobody needs a fair trial or you, know, rights for the next generation.

Does the current administration actually want us there permanently?  I'm betting we never actually withdraw and wind up leaving garrisons behind.

So, the Karl Rove defense is that he was talking about "liberals" and not "Democrats."  I often define myself as liberal before Democrat, so, here are my thoughts:

First, I'm a New York City liberal.  On September 11th I was 10 days away from flying to New Mexico to get married.  My wife was already out of the city, which gave me some personal comfort.  I'd been to the WTC just the day before, for a meeting.  I took it personally even though my idiotic tale of being there the day before is kind of not worth mentioning in light of the people who were there, in that moment.

And... like everybody,  I was shaken, angry and wanted justice.

So, yes, I supported the war in Afghanistan.  I had my reservations, but I supported it.  Had Gore won the 2000 election, I knew, there was no doubt that we would be at war there at that moment.  Let's be honest -- Bush and Gore would have had the same reaction to 9-11.  The country demanded it.

 
Well, the same immediate reaction.

And, to go back to the liberals vs. Democrats meme:  I know a lot of very anti-war people.  They weren't against going after the Taliban and neither was I.  In fact, many of us liberals who weren't entirely pacifist were wondering why we let the Taliban rule for so long, given the attrocities they commited well before hosting Osama.  A lot of us even wanted to know why our representatives, from both parties, supported the Taliban before the war.  There were complexities and there were questions...

But we had been attacked and we supported a response.

9-11 did transcend party.  Our response was about national defense.

But, that's where the similarities end.

The big difference between having a Democrat in the White House instead of a Republican can be measured by the death toll of our invasion of Iraq that, including all sides, it over 120,000 people.

The Democrats wouldn't have done that.

What I say to Rove is... think the worst of me.  I'm a latte sipping, book reading, punk rock playin' coward!  I hate war!  I really do.  I even fear it, even though there's almost no chance I'll ever be asked to serve in one.  I fear for my friends and for people I don't even know.  I still supported the campaign against the Taliban because they aided an attck against us and because it was our best chance to bring Osama to justice.

And, to speak to some of Rove's points, I'd have preferred he be taken alive, brought here and brought to public trial.  It would have really shown something to the world.

But, it took me some thought you come to that conclusion.  My immediate post 9-11 instinct, as I attended the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, was that OBL should have been captured and brough there, to let the people of my fair city deal with him.

See, Karl, we all had a little blodlust after 9-11.  I dare say, sir, that while your life involves D.C. and the Pentagon that my life involves NYC and the WTC, and that we had some similar feelings, being safe and yet afraid, knowing people who died, getting to know people who died... I'm sure we felt much the same way.  Liberal and conservative.  We felt much the same way.

I wasn't anti-war afater 9-11 and I don't know anybody who was.  And the people I know tend to be the libbiest of libs... actors, theatre directors, journalists, novelists and artists.  We didn't object to war when it seemed necessary.

But we did keep our heads and object to war against a country that had nothing to do with 9-11.  I guess we maintained our cool and kept our focus.  I guess you all didn't. 

This probably won't happen often.  If I were a big real estate developer, I'd probably first look for available land, rather than launch myself into a costly fight just to bulldoze some old people out of their homes.  But, in places where real estate is scarce, this is now an option.  Grease the hands of the right politicians, have an old, unpopular neighborhood flattened and... put up a Wal-Mart or whatever.

Is economic growth a public good?  Yeah, it probably is.  But there should also be some give and take.  People are supposed to be able to live where they want, especially when they own their land and homes.  I know that people are often guided by the economy, but isn't there supposed to be another side to it?  Isn't the economy supposed to work around people's choices?

Every day we slip further and further into a rut where the economy, rather than being held in its rightful place as a tool of society becomes its controlling force, as if economic interests trump all others.

I'm not entirely sure what I thinl.

I already feel bad for Pre-9-11 military volunteers who signed up while the various Armed Forces, in peacetime, basically advertised themselves as a free vocational school with college tuition money and health care to come after a tour of duty.

Post 9-11, McCain;s right that the government didn't respond by asking folks to serve.  The line was, rather, that our military would avenge us, bring the terrorists to justice and that everything would be fine.

Given what's happened since then, I kind of think that a military recruitment drive post 9-11 would have been dishonest.  Bush might claim that the War on Terror and the War in Iraq are one in the same, but they seem rather different to me.  Even if you don't see them as entirely distinct, I'll bet many of you see Iraq as "mission creep."

But, maybe I'm being too easy on myself by opposing military recruitment for a war I didn't want,  So... Iraq aside, is McCain right that there should have been a call to military service after 9-11?  I'm still inclined to say "no more than usual" because to my mind, the dreams, hopes and aspirations of individuals on September 10th should not have been drastically changed on September 12th.  But, I am curious to hear other voices on this. 

Imagine rereading everything you've read about Guantanomo Bay and Abu Grhaib without knowing it was about Americans. How would you react? Maybe you wouldn't jump tp Nazi's and Stalinists. Maybe you'd think of Serbs and Bosnians, or Rwanda, or a Turkish prison or any number of global Hell holes. But, unless you're really cynical, I don't think you'd jump to "America" as a first answer.

See, what Durbin has pointed out, and what people don't want to hear, is that a lot of what's happened in our prison camps defies what we like to think about America, its motives and its conduct. That is a painful realization for a lot of people. They've reacted with a backlash, by ignoring the substance of Durbin's words and going, instead for an attack on him personally as some sort of traitor.

Of course, invoking Nazis in any debate is always dangerous. In "Anything Else" Woody Allen ascribes this thought to one of his characters: The crimes of the Nazis were so attrocious that if the entire huiman race were wiped out as punishment, it could be argued that we got off too easy. A lot of people feel that way, and there are a lot of reasons for feeling that way. For many intelligent people, Naziism represented the worst of humanity, the literal creation of Hell on Earth and a crime not to be used for comparison. Even Stalin falls short of Hitler in the minds of many. So, Durbin fell into that trap.

But, it goes beyond that.

Just as, for many, Nazis represent the incomparable worst, the US, during World War II represents the heroic best. We're dealing with a mythos in both cases. We could argue forever about what genocide was worse or what war was mor justified, or what economic reasons we had for getting into World War II, but it doesn't matter. This is how people feel and their feelings about Nazi evil and US World War II heroism do have rational roots. Most peace-loving pacifists I know make a World War II exception though they criticize some of our more atrocious acts like the firebombing of Dresden and the H-bombing of Japan.

The result of this "U.S. World War II heroism" mythos is to give any comparison of US behavior to Nazis a little extra sting. Us? Nazis? My grandpa, a farm boy from Idaho, lost a hand fighting Nazis! We can't be like them, our entire conception of our military and of who we are, was defined by our opposition to them. By our opposition to evil. This is why Bush's rhetoric has been so effective. He says "evil," and he touches something, ingrained in the schooling of even the most cynical anti-Bush American: we fight evil. Pick up any book by Stephen Ambrose. I did, recently. He was more left wing than I thought. But he buys into this mythology, completely and he made a lot of money selling books to other people, who also buy it.

The thing is, no mythology is perfect and no mythology is completely wrong. There has to be something "right" about it for it to take hold. And yet, back to Durbin -- if you honestly perform his thought experiment, if you read about Abu Grhaib or Guantanomo without knowing that it's American behavior being discussed, you arrive at the frightening conclusion that our behavior right now has strayed quite far from the myths that sustain us.

Instead of calling the man a traitor, we should face ourselves and ask: Can we make American reality closer to America's mythos?