And yes, I was referring to the Suskind book, which should be blowing us out of the water, but which has been relegated to the book review pages of major newspapers. Instead we are subjected to a daily recap and analysis of each candidate's statements and misstatements, as well as the statements and misstatements of their surrogates.

I just don't see it as an overreaction. The choice was made not to impeach because of cowardice. The Democrats are unwilling to risk their paper-thin majority, and the Republicans have long ago sacrificed the good of the country for party unity.

And yes, I was referring to the Suskind book, which should be blowing us out of the water, but which has been relegated to the book review pages of major newspapers. Instead we are subjected to a daily recap and analysis of each candidate's statements and misstatements, as well as the statements and misstatements of their surrogates.

I just don't see it as an overreaction. The choice was made not to impeach because of cowardice. The Democrats are unwilling to risk their paper-thin majority, and the Republicans have long ago sacrificed the good of the country for party unity.

Yes, and — I don't think we're going to attempt that again any time soon.

Hillary Clinton demonstrated herself to be quite far to the left after 1993 (that gave us the 1994 election results), yet after several years watching the Clintons concede to reality, was anyone aghast at her running for the Presidency this year? No. Many of us expected her to run for her first time in 2004, not now in 2008. Bill Clinton still strikes us as the most corrupt president ever. But do you know what? I suspect that many of us would actually be relieved to at least have someone competent or adept as President rather than someone inept who can be exploited by others quietly (see Bush and Cheney). I suspect that is a widely held belief, which is why the “radical extremist!” “alarms” about Obama as well as Hillary Clinton aren't just muted, but are remarkably absent. I also see this as one of a number of indications that we're heading for a big Democratic election year.

Yes, even if there is likely to be a perpetuation of the unwritten rule that presidents will, if need be, pardon other presidents. I don't necessarily believe all that is in the new Suskind book (in case you were aware of it and this motivated you to make your remark about evidence) but I'm suspicious. (To this day, too, I still wonder exactly why we went there. Was it the exploiting of current strife and future concerns to remove a past-demonstrated threat [Iraqi government], was it truly naive and conceited “transformational” belief by the neo-cons, or was it just a desire for Bush to look tough and get revenge on the guy who tried to kill his father, who had lost the 1992 elections for not doing in the earlier war what Bush tried to do this time starting almost entirely from scratch.)

No — I've stated clearly that we have engaged in torture (even if some Bush people can claim dubious legal technicalities) and that it is wrong. But the Bush-bashing and much of the rabid anti-war sub-sub-culture we see so often is broader in scope than that, deeper in its dislike (descending into hatred), and much more diseased.

So to be against illegal torture is to be a lunatic??? I think many more Americans oppose torture than the far left, including the GOP candidate for president. But I guess you think its crazy for us to expect an administration to obey US law and not work to circumvent it.

Once elected, though, Obama and his advisers are smart enough to know the can of worms and precedence it would set if they did indeed follow that course.

Theirs and future administrations might even have to obey the law!

They say nothing (especially Obama) so that the more militant left supporters WILL think that is what they will do, and be energized, and vote, and at the same time not force them to talk about it.

Once elected, though, Obama and his advisers are smart enough to know the can of worms and precedence it would set if they did indeed follow that course. Every administration after will then be subject to the same or similar treatment, when party control of Congress changes. Every administration official will worry more about the potential for future incrimination than on doing their jobs.

In the end, at the top of each party are people with the same goals – to be in charge. They are part of the same club more than they are opponents, and taking care of each other is taking care of themselves.

First step: Candidate Obama and Speaker Pelosi should announce their intentions — prior to the election — with regard to any so-called “war crimes” trials.

**Crickets Chirping**

Of course, I don't expect them to say a word. And by being utterly silent, the Left will assume a clear mandate for these trials exists.

The progressive drumbeat in this regard is a stealth project:
Ssh…ssh…let the American public think we're moderate. Don't say anything until after the election. And when Obama wins . . .

Then…revenge on BushHitler Co…oops, read “justice” for revenge…yes, justice on BushHitler Co. . . .

And should Obama not win . . . we can begin an immediate impeachment of President McCain to run in conjunction with the War Crimes Trial . . . for the high crimes and misdemeanor of being elected on false pretenses of not coming clean about his 30 year old affair like our progressive hero John Edwards.

Memo to the MSM: You blew it with your lamer shield for Edwards. Now STFU about any war crimes business until after the election.