With a little reflection on Schaller's post I started to wonder how exactly Schaller would react if the situation were reversed. What if Iraq had invaded America without substantive reason, deciding unilaterally that we would be better off if our government and social order were overturned? What if Iraq's invading armies killed Schaller's neighbors, friends and relatives, while at the same time claiming they were bringing freedom and self-determination to our country?

And after all that, what if Saddam visited America and gave a press conference and Schaller was able to attend? Would he still scoff and be offended at someone throwing a pair of shoes at Saddam?

Schaller's reaction is just nonsense. Actually finding the time to be offended at this tiny symbolic act against the backdrop of hundreds of thousands (a million?) Iraqi dead I frankly find the greater insult.

I think Schaller has offered up a perfect example of the palpable lack of real-world perspective that dominates the foreign policy establishment of Washington DC. His example also illustrates the American attitude that most non-Americans find so appalling. Isn't our goal to improve our image in the world?

With very insightful take on the continuity of US foreign policy between the Bush and Obama Presidencies, William Pfaff argues that there will be no fundamental shift in transition. In his own words, "[f]undamental is the key word, meaning change in the goals pursued and the assumptions that underlie policy." Although torture and flaunting of international law may be waning, policies that give rise to these phenomena, such as indiscriminate bombing of small countries and regime change wherever the US wants, will only grow. In the words of Condoleezza Rice, "it is absolutely clear that we will be engaged in nation-building for years to come." And this clarity is "a uniquely American realism" that highlights "it is America's job to change the world, and in its own image." Well there you have it.

Two excellent posts, one by Digby and one by David Sirota, detailing the gross overreaction from Obama's deputy campaign manager Steve Hildebrand (among many others) to concerns from the left about Obama's cabinet picks. Is it being too critical to publically show concern that Obama hasn't picked any Liberals to be prominent members of his cabinet?

The Best quote on this subject comes from Digby: "Instead of writing a letter to, say, the actual people that are going to obstruct Obama's agenda, like the ones who will filibuster the auto industry rescue, Hildebrand finds it important to break up all gatherings of five hippies in a field. That's important to the survival of the nation. That's worth the effort."

Here is an excellent article posted on Salon.com today on possibilities of a new Church-style commission to investigate possible crimes committed by the Bush Administration.

Personally I won't believe it until I see it. After all, Democrats are very busy running around, including Obama advisor Cass Sunstein, essentially saying that "political harmony" in Washington is more important than the rule of law, and pursuit of a Bush prosecution (or any members of his administration) should and would be blocked.

Glenn Greenwald points out in a well-written post that many of the "Washington insiders" who are now up in arms over newly revealed facets of the Bush Administration's torture regime have to some degree enabled this behavior. The Bush Administration's theory of unlimited Executive power gave it what it thought was the authority to order torture in the first place, and it is this same theory that many Washington insiders have directly and indirectly supported over the years, such as in the warrantless eavesdropping program, that has given the Administration ammunition to support its theory.

Washington insiders, Congressional supporters and Conservative foreign policy cheerleaders have turned our country from a nation of laws into a nation of men.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling against the handgun ownership ban in Washington DC Arthur Kellermann lays out a persuasive argument that from the public health perspective keeping guns in the home is far more dangerous than allowing citizens to keep them unlocked.

Meanwhile, touting their Second Amendment victory, conservatives across the country fiddle while the rest of the Constitution burns.

An amazing video by MoveOn.org. Endless war on the installment plan, as propagated by the Bush Administration and Presidential candidate John McCain.

William Pfaff responds to Henry Kissinger's mischaracterization of the threat of Islamic terrorist jihad. In a sort-of strategic exaggeration, Kissinger describes the jihadists as a force capable of destabilizing the global balances of power. In the sprawling world order described by Kissinger it seems to be a given that the terrorists have the power to overthrow the weak and unstable Middle Eastern nations, thereby throwing the rest of the world into disorder.

Comparing Kissinger's arguments to those of an overwrought counselor of a 16th century Turkish Sultan, Pfaff points out that the jihadist movement Kissinger describes is not a centralized force that will eventually topple nations, but is composed mostly of local actors that have successfully been combated by good police work. And on top of this, Kissinger's remedy of heightened militarism to deal with the jihadist threat has already proven to only worsen the problem.

How can Michael Gordon expect to be taken seriously when he suggests it is the military officers who should decide our polices in Iraq? Military officers are good at waging war, not at navigating the national and international political factors that will ultimately decide the outcome of our Iraqi military occupation.

Let's leave decision making where it belongs, with politicians and the citizens that put them in office and not with officers on the ground or partisan reporters who seem more interested in American preeminence and glory than in a truly just outcome.