Quoting claymisher: That's 18.5 minutes too many.

Be generous to innocent bystanders. Call it 9.25.

That's 3 Millenia in Goldfarb minutes.

18.5 minutes left ? Where's Rosemary Woods when we need her ?

It's not as if commenters haven't repeatedly demonstrated that there are partisans of whatever stripe that can challenge and stoke us reasonably. Why does someone, some staffers, keep booking worthless sock puppets like Goldfarb? Why, after a speech, notable for both its vacuity and limpness, are we treated to a mere pundit - and a hack at that - even less compelling than any kid with an elementary school diploma? 'Head selection is really suffering. It's hurting! What did I do to deserve Goldfarb in my browser today?! What's next, coal in my Xmas stocking? My apologies to Malou Innocent!

Great diavlog. Malou is a favorite of mine.

Quoting AemJeff: Be generous to innocent bystanders. Call it 9.25.

You're right. Sorry, Innocent!

Goldfarb wrongly assumes all conservatives are in bed with John McCain, Kristol and other war lords, war lord groupies and war lord wannabes. But it's not so. Conservatives are free to support peace and oppose war on a variety of grounds. Dennnis Kucinich discussed this today with Amy Goodman on Dem. Now. A new pro-peace coalition may be emerging that includes libertarians, Republicans and Democrats. There is certainly a groundswell of bipartisan opposition to Obama's War emerging in the streets. I saw it today at our local demonstration against the escalation. Most Americans seem thoroughly unconvinced by Obama's arguments for waging more war. His speech was unpersuasive, pompous and Bushesque, which is probably why he needed the military band and sexy awe-stricken adolescents in spiffy uniforms to prop it up (or to be cynically used as props). As opposition mounts in Congress over the next few weeks, more people will "have permission" to oppose Obama's war without fear of being ostracized from the Dem. Party as disloyal or condemned by the Repub. dinosaurs as soft on terror. The pundits need to catch up.

I know that it's wrong for me to let this affect my (admittedly already low) opinion of Goldfarb, but I find his voice and manner of speech incredibly irritating, in a hard to describe way.

Also, Goldfarb is guilty of one of my biggest pet peeves: putting words in the American People's mouth.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/242...3:38&out=03:53

There is alot of Gold"XXXX" on bhtv.
Maybe this will take your mind off that name.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MagCoUYvIXE

Quoting Wonderment: Goldfarb wrongly assumes all conservatives are in bed with John McCain, Kristol and other war lords, war lord groupies and war lord wannabes.

But it's not so. Conservatives are free to support peace and oppose war on a variety of grounds.

Dennnis Kucinich discussed this today with Amy Goodman on Dem. Now. A new pro-peace coalition may be emerging that includes libertarians, Republicans and Democrats.

There is certainly a groundswell of bipartisan opposition to Obama's War emerging in the streets. I saw it today at our local demonstration against the escalation.

Most Americans seem thoroughly unconvinced by Obama's arguments for waging more war. His speech was unpersuasive, pompous and Bushesque, which is probably why he needed the military band and sexy awe-stricken adolescents in spiffy uniforms to prop it up (or to be cynically used as props).

As opposition mounts in Congress over the next few weeks, more people will "have permission" to oppose Obama's war without fear of being ostracized from the Dem. Party as disloyal or condemned by the Repub. dinosaurs as soft on terror.

The pundits need to catch up.

This is what happens when you govern against party expectations. You

Quoting Don Zeko: I know that it's wrong for me to let this affect my (admittedly already low) opinion of Goldfarb, but I find his voice and manner of speech incredibly irritating, in a hard to describe way.

Hard to describe? Jesus, it's easy, Don. Unbearably arrogant, perpetually disgruntled and weary, disdainful, supercilious. His every gesture screams, "Why do I have to suffer so many fools, God?" (By which he means himself, of course.) Utterly insufferable.

Quoting Don Zeko: I know that it's wrong for me to let this affect my (admittedly already low) opinion of Goldfarb, but I find his voice and manner of speech incredibly irritating, in a hard to describe way.

I understand the 'irritating in a hard to describe way' part. That's the way I feel about Obama's manner of speech. I'm not sure what Goldfarb said that elicits such rancour from some people. Perhaps it is because he is known from previous diavlogs and is from the Weekly Standard. Personally, I have never heard him before and found him simply engaged in truth telling as was Ms Innocent. I was particularly interested in his take on Bush's attitude about the conflict and the difference between Bush and Obama, in that Bush was always perceived as wanting to win and believing that the US could.

Quoting mattcbrown: Unbearably arrogant, perpetually disgruntled and weary, disdainful, supercilious.

The mouth-breathing also doesn't help.

BadHat - I don't think that's "interesting" so much as the kind of crap that you love to hear. This is just feelgood stuff for the usual cranks. Goldfarb isn't serious because he was working for a candidate who proposed "muddling through" in Afghanistan when Obama was calling for more troops. You guys are laughable.

Quoting badhatharry: Personally, I have never heard him before and found him simply engaged in truth telling as was Ms Innocent. I was particularly interested in his take on Bush's attitude about the conflict and the difference between Bush and Obama, in that Bush was always perceived as wanting to win and believing that the US could.

I enjoyed listening to Goldfarb also. He is much prefered to the cowardly, boring centrists featured in the 2 preceeding diavlogs. Regarding the current situation in Afg. The democrats are not in it to win it. American soldiers are going to die in vain, for a cause that will be abandoned as soon as the 2012 election approaches. Miserable people, these democrats.

Most people masturbate in private, Steve.

Quoting Don Zeko: Also, Goldfarb is guilty of one of my biggest pet peeves: putting words in the American People's mouth.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/242...3:38&out=03:53

I agree. He should not refer to the opinion of the american people. We are far too divided to be refered to universally. The sooner we dismantle the federal system, the sooner that the sensible and responsible amoung us can be firewalled off from the destructive deficit spending of the democrat majority.

Incidentally, who in their right mind would "want" to be a War President. Eisenhower - who led the Allies at Normandy - didn't want to be a War President. Goldfarb betrays his adolescent frame of mind in the couple of minutes I listened to. Childish stuff from a typical Weakly Standard ChickenHawk scribbler.

Please get Juan Cole on here, he's been on at least once before, knows what he is talking about, knows what people in Afghanistan, Iraq and the "Muslim street" are talking about (not just democrat vrs republican myopia) and is an expert at debunking common misconceptions about how our foreign policy has worked and is working. My biggest peeve tight now is people a) thinking the surge in Iraq worked, when what "worked" was the Anbar awakening; convincing Sunni Militias to switch alliances from the 'insurgency' to the US as a better ally against Shia parties and militias which has been integrated into the Malaki government. and b) that the surge model of Iraq can be exported to Afghanistan. Less hacks, more http://juancole.com

Quoting Don Zeko: Also, Goldfarb is guilty of one of my biggest pet peeves: putting words in the American People's mouth.
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/242...3:38&out=03:53

Yep, it's annoying, and a typical trick of of either a) politicians or b) political hacks. Goldfarb, having surrendered any pretense of being an actual "journalist" long ago, falls into category B. It's annoying when Obama or any other politician does it as well, I think. (It's particularly jarring when Obama refers to the American people as "they.") In sum: the American people are tired of people putting words in the American People's mouth!

Given the assumption that the "Defeatists" are right, and throwing more troops at the problem will not not solve anything, is there a number of soldiers killed that would make it not worth it to you? Or does increasing numbers of soldiers killed mean an increasing need to stay and buckle down? I'm asking this, because I have never really understood the line of thinking that says X must be accomplished because Y died trying to accomplish X, even when it means >Y will be dead in the future as a result of pursuing X.

Quoting GulfCoastCommie: Please get Juan Cole on here

Everytime I read Juan Cole, he was predicting the surge would not work. Lo and behold, it did work. Thanks in large part to GWB and the USMC. The democrat brand will be in ruins by 2012. Their failure in Afg will be contrasted against Bush's success in Iraq. And the economy will be in such a shambles that the majority will be ready for unfettered free market capitalism.

Quoting nikkibong:
In sum: the American people are tired of people putting words in the American People's mouth!

That's a keeper!

The democrat brand will be in ruins by 2012. Their failure in Afg will be contrasted against Bush's success in Iraq. And the economy will be in such a shambles that the majority will be ready for unfettered free market capitalism.

LOL, literally, as in I am actually laughing out loud right now. Want to make a bet?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: He is much prefered to the cowardly, boring centrists featured in the 2 preceeding diavlogs.

I find our individual responses to various heads interesting. As nice as I think Farley is (and that is very nice) I could not take more than about 4 minutes of his bullshit on the subject of Obama's war announcement, and switched it off. Which I regret, as I really appreciate Matt Duss. Goldfarb is a trip. He has not acquitted himself well in his appearances. I can't tell if it's a self-protective front he's built up, or if he thinks it makes him look cool or tough to offer such opinions as, "Bullshit!" and other analyses such as, "...blah, blah, blah." Or is that's the real, unvarnished him. Also, he may have been up especially late or early to accomodate the time difference. And the first taping was a no go. One thing I especially appreciated about Goldfarb was that he seemed to actually listen to Ms. Innocent without waiting for an opportunity to jump in. She was interesting and extremely well-spoken, and I look forward seeing her again...matched with Duss would be a real treat.

Urgh! Steve did you not read what I said? The reason there was less violence in Iraq was that Shia militas had ethnically cleansed almost all of the Sunni from mixed neigborhoods in Baghdad (creating an enormous refugee crisis), and that Sunni militias in Anbar decided they had lost the civil war and should ally themselves with the US occupation to hold back the Shia. The surge of more US soldiers into Iraq happened at the same time, but was NOT what lead to this fragile truce. The Anbar awakening is what stopped the Sunnis from attacking US occupation forces, not extra troops. This policy of supporting extreme sectarian militias on both sides is probably a bad strategy in the long run. Big Noise films produced this great piece for Al-Jazera English on the back story of the Anbar awakening:
http://www.bignoisefilms.com/videowi...ghost-of-anbar This is Juan Cole's article from Tuesday about the fallacy of the Afghanistan Surge, he makes a very similar point:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature...rge/index.html

Quoting brucds: Incidentally, who in their right mind would "want" to be a War President. Eisenhower - who led the Allies at Normandy - didn't want to be a War President. Goldfarb betrays his adolescent frame of mind in the couple of minutes I listened to. Childish stuff from a typical Weakly Standard ChickenHawk scribbler.

Apparently the prospect of being a war leader made Churchill positively giddy. You can read about it in Pat Buchanan’s excellent book.
Regarding Goldfarb, I disagree with him politically, but I do find his strong, masculine presentation entertaining. Michael Goldfarb is a real man’s man. No homo.

Quoting GulfCoastCommie: Urgh! Steve did you not read what I said? The reason there was less violence in Iraq was that Shia militas had ethnically cleansed almost all of the Sunni from mixed neigborhoods in Baghdad (creating an enormous refugee crisis), and that Sunni militias in Anbar decided they had lost the civil war and should ally themselves with the US occupation to hold back the Shia. The surge of more US soldiers into Iraq happened at the same time, but was NOT what lead to this fragile truce.

Yes, commie. I did read what you said. I have read it plenty of times before as democrats attempt to "explain" how Iraq worked out as well as it has. What I am saying is that Juan Cole ( and all the others who are explaining to us how the insurgency was defeated in Iraq ) never predicted that development, never advocated a change in policy that would enable it to happen sooner and was not aware of it while it was happening. All we heard during the Bush years from the Juan Cole types was that everything the US did in Iraq was doomed to

No, not the content (I know why that's unbearable). I mean the actual sound of his voice: something about the tenor, accent, or something.

Quoting look: I find our individual responses to various heads interesting.....

Good objective analysis. Thanks.

Quoting look: I find our individual responses to various heads interesting. As nice as I think Farley is (and that is very nice) I could not take more than about 4 minutes of his bullshit on the subject of Obama's war announcement, and switched it off. Which I regret, as I really appreciate Matt Duss.

Goldfarb is a trip. He has not acquitted himself well in his appearances. I can't tell if it's a self-protective front he's built up, or if he thinks it makes him look cool or tough to offer such opinions as, "Bullshit!" and other analyses such as, "...blah, blah, blah." Or is that's the real, unvarnished him. Also, he may have been up especially late or early to accomodate the time difference. And the first taping was a no go.

One thing I especially appreciated about Goldfarb was that he seemed to actually listen to Ms. Innocent without waiting for an opportunity to jump in. She was interesting and extremely well-spoken, and I look forward seeing her again...matched with Duss would be a real treat.

What is it that you don't like about Farley? Personally, I skip most of his appearances -- he's in the thrall of the boring jargon-laden IR speak that I simply can't stand. (Thank

Hey, with 100,000 troops in area why not go after Osama in Pakistan full force like we did originally in Afghanistan? Only this time don't let him get away. Screw Pakistan's objections. They are giving sanctuary the man who attacked the United States. With Osama gone we could go home in good conscience.

Quoting brucds: BadHat - I don't think that's "interesting" so much as the kind of crap that you love to hear. This is just feelgood stuff for the usual cranks. Goldfarb isn't serious because he was working for a candidate who proposed "muddling through" in Afghanistan when Obama was calling for more troops. You guys are laughable.

Since we are playing 'you guys', I would like to say that 'you guys' always profess to know what people are thinking. Do you ever wonder if your powers of ESP are correct? I doubt it. I call this this pseudo-psychoanalysis (p)syndrome. I don't really like to hear anything in particular about this mess we are in in the Middle East. I do like to hear the varying opinions which are out there. I really don't think anyone really knows what to do about this situation. The best we have are good, educated guesses and hopefully, mostly best intentions.

I don't normally quote David Frum, but I'll do it contra Goldfarb:
"If there’s one thing that everybody seems agreed on, it is that Barack Obama’s speech at West Point did not sound like Winston Churchill.

“It’s not exactly the kind of speech that you would have heard from Henry V or Churchill,” said Charles Krauthammer in the post-speech coverage on Fox. “Too much Chamberlain, not enough Churchill,” agreed Chris Matthews on MSNBC the day before.

What nobody pauses to explain is why it would be desirable for Obama to have sounded like Churchill.

Churchill’s great speeches of 1940-41 were delivered at the most desperate moment in his country’s history. Their grandeur suited the uniquely fateful occasion. But let’s please underscore that word “uniquely.”

America’s situation in Afghanistan in 2009 in no way resembles that of Britain in 1940. The problem is not that we confront some overwhelming adversary – or that key leaders are fearfully contemplating capitulation to a new world empire. The problem is that a lot of Americans doubt whether success in Afghanistan is worth the price it is likely to cost.

President Obama’s challenge is to persuade the

BadHass: You're not exactly a mystery in these parts...no need for ESP.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The sooner we dismantle the federal system, the sooner that the sensible and responsible amoung us can be firewalled off from the destructive deficit spending of the democrat majority.

Steve, you do realize that your shtick is so old and out-of-touch that even video games got around to making a mockery of it? Last year. Seriously, homes: you've got nuthin'.

I liked Goldfarb well enough. I'd watch him again. This was my first time seeing him though I have read a few of his posts on the W.S. blog and, I think, on the Contentions blog. He is far preferable to, for example, Michelle Goldberg or that other unbearable, lesser light Jane Hamisher. My point is that there are people who post here so ideologically strait jacketed they cannot abide real opinion difference. Malou, I really liked. There should be a 20-30 minute time limit on most of these exchanges. That would get rid of so much unwatchable palaver. As for Obama's speech and all the time he took to get to it, it all confuses the hell out of me partly because I think it was--intended or not-- primo triangulation out of the pages of Bill Clinton and Dick Morris. And as an artful triangulator, he did himself a world of political good, making inroads into his hitherto feckless, naive foreign policy. To those demonstrating against the Afghan escalation, like starry eyed, one state onederment, yeah, there's a real groundswell there alright. Dream on, luftmensch, dream on. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

Quoting basman: I liked Goldfarb well enough. I'd watch him again. This was my first time seeing him though I have read a few of his posts on the W.S. blog and, I think, on the Contentions blog. He is far preferable to, for example, Michelle Goldberg or that other unbearable, lesser light Jane Hamisher. My point is that there are people who post here so ideologically strait jacketed they cannot abide real opinion difference.

Malou, I really liked.

There should be a 20-30 minute time limit on most of these exchanges. That would get rid of so much unwatchable palaver.

As for Obama's speech and all the time he took to get to it, it all confuses the hell out of me partly because I think it was--intended or not-- primo triangulation out of the pages of Bill Clinton and Dick Morris. And as an artful triangulator, he did himself a world of political good, making inroads into his hitherto feckless, naive foreign policy.

To those demonstrating against the Afghan escalation, like starry eyed, one state onederment, yeah, there's a real groundswell there alright. Dream on, luftmensch, dream on.

Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

I gotta say - I have no problem with ideological heterogeneity. I despise Goldfarb because

Agreed. Goldfarb displays his hackishness today by being all aboard the "dithering!!!" train - an argument that takes quite a bit of cojones for Dick Cheney or the Weekly Standard to make, seeing as they basically agreed to have no policy for Afghanistan for 7 years before they discovered this talking point. There are a lot of respectable criticisms to make of Obama's policy from the right or the left, but this one positively reeks of opportunism and dishonesty.

Someone--guess who--said: "...It is clear why the liberal left is in spasm: Obama has dropped their pretenses that, if you do nothing, you can accomplish much. With the Republicans, it is a different matter. Partisanship does not permit them to recognize in the Democratic president, in this Democratic president, the patriotism of his predecessors...." And someone else--guess who--said: "...Many Bush supporters like to point to that president’s enormous courage in turning against the prevailing winds, disregarding not only the advice of the foreign policy establishment but of many of his own top advisers and much of the Republican party, which in early 2007 was perfectly prepared to quit Iraq to save their political skins. But now we see President Obama doing much the same thing, turning against a majority in his own party, resisting the counsel of Biden and the wise men to head for the exits from a war that they had long supported. It seems to me that Obama deserves even more credit for courage than Bush did, for he has risked much more. By the time Bush decided to support the surge in Iraq in early 2007, his

Quoting AemJeff: I gotta say - I have no problem with ideological heterogeneity. I despise Goldfarb because I think he's he the poster-boy for smug intellectual dishonesty. I didn't watch this diavloglet, and I don't plan to; but his record is long and dishonorable.

Gimme' an example, if you care to. Itzik Basman (not to be confused with Itzik Basman)

There are a lot of respectable criticisms to make of Obama's policy from the right or the left, but this one positively reeks of opportunism and dishonesty.

First off, I'm assuming you mean doves by left and hawks by right. Second, I agree that the "dithering" criticism is idiotic. But what's the respectable argument from the right? That Obama hasn't bombed Teheran yet? Obama is proving that Dems. in the White House and with large majorities in the House and Senate won't be outdone as exceptionalist war lords. Peace activists are beginning to look for allies among Republicans to oppose Obama's war. Open invitation: Antiwar Republicans, Join us! We will not vote for pro-war Dems.

When I said "respectable" I meant a criticism that I can imagine someone holding in good faith. A good example of this would be criticism of Obama for setting a (loose) deadline to (begin) withdrawal (of some but maybe not all of our forces) from Afghanistan, or perhaps chiding him for not deploying more troops than the 30,000 he's sent, or perhaps suggesting that helmand province isn't the most productive place for these reinforcements to go. This isn't to say that I think that these criticisms are correct, just that they make some level of sense and that honest people can disagree over them. The dithering line, on the other hand, is being offered by people that loudly insisted, over and over again for the last seven years, that troop levels in Afghanistan were completely adequate, that the status quo was working fine, and that the Iraq war in no way contributed to a lack of resources in Afghanistan. Then Obama takes office, immediately sends thousands of additional soldiers to Afghanistan, and holds a lengthy strategy review before giving McChrystal almost exactly what he asked for, and this qualifies as dithering by a feckless president who

Also, "war lords"? How is that a useful term to use in this debate? Wonderment, you'd be a lot more effective if you engaged people about the wisdom of the war, rather than simply asserting that you are part of a growing bipartisan movement, so ipso facto people that aren't are lackeys of neo-imperialist warmongers.

Quoting Wonderment: Obama is proving that Dems. in the White House and with large majorities in the House and Senate won't be outdone as exceptionalist war lords.

lying our country into an irrational war = trying to end a war inherited from your predecessor I understand you emotional reaction, but you do not seriously believe that do you?

Quoting look: I find our individual responses to various heads interesting. As nice as I think Farley is (and that is very nice) I could not take more than about 4 minutes of his bullshit on the subject of Obama's war announcement, and switched it off. Which I regret, as I really appreciate Matt Duss.

Goldfarb is a trip. He has not acquitted himself well in his appearances. I can't tell if it's a self-protective front he's built up, or if he thinks it makes him look cool or tough to offer such opinions as, "Bullshit!" and other analyses such as, "...blah, blah, blah." Or is that's the real, unvarnished him. Also, he may have been up especially late or early to accomodate the time difference. And the first taping was a no go.

One thing I especially appreciated about Goldfarb was that he seemed to actually listen to Ms. Innocent without waiting for an opportunity to jump in. She was interesting and extremely well-spoken, and I look forward seeing her again...matched with Duss would be a real treat.

Sorry, Goldfarb, I see you have improved since the pre-election days. You were sharp-looking and articulate in your recent talk with Farley. Luckily, I left myself some weasel room...you were tired.

Quoting badhatharry: Good objective analysis. Thanks.

Thanks, harry.

Quoting nikkibong: What is it that you don't like about Farley?

Personally, I skip most of his appearances -- he's in the thrall of the boring jargon-laden IR speak that I simply can't stand. (Thank God Worldwise seems to have a died a well-deserved death.)

I went back and looked at the beginnings of some Farleys, and I think it's that he sometimes talks at 1.4x speed, and he gets a bit jumbled. But there are others where he is more sedate and interesting to watch. Sometimes with vlogs, it's my mood. For example, the latest Bob/Mickey I had no patience for till a few days later. And then there's some like the Rosin/Bazelon where they spent four segments on Mad Men...puh-leeze. But really, I don't mind. If it were four segments on a show I really liked, it'd be interesting.

Also, "war lords"? How is that a useful term to use in this debate?

I think it is useful in terms of underscoring how the US and its leadership are viewed by much of the rest of the world. We are so intoxicated by our self-serving justifications for military domination that we tend to miss how horrifying our behavior is to others. We talk casually about other people being "terrorists and warlords." But when we engage in "shock and awe" in Iraq, bombings of civilians inside Pakistan (an "ally" of ours) and countless other misdeeds of intimidation, murder and mayhem, we claim to have God and justice on our side. Just like them.

lying our country into an irrational war = trying to end a war inherited from your predecessor

I understand you emotional reaction, but you do not seriously believe that do you?

Not sure what you're asking here. Obama was right to oppose the Iraq War. Bush and company are criminally responsible for that horror. However, on another deeper level, I believe the Obama administration is just as bellicose as Bush. In foreign policy there is no change I can believe in beyond the unbreakable campaigns promises to close Gitmo and prohibit officially-sanctioned torture. What's the change? Better speeches? More nuance? Proper pronunciation of "nuclear"? I'm sick of Obama speeches. I'm sick of war.

Quoting Wonderment: I believe the Obama administration is just as bellicose as Bush.

i think until Obama starts a war, that is an egregiously false equivalence. I also think that eventually you will come agree with that assessment. if you feel the same way '12, i'll owe you a donation to your favorite cause, if you come to agree with me - a Rogue Dead Guy Ale might be appreciated ; ) have a good day Wonder.

I also think that eventually you will come agree with that assessment. if you feel the same way '12, i'll owe you a donation to your favorite cause, if you come to agree with me - a Rogue Dead Guy Ale might be appreciated ; )

It's a deal. I hope you win!

But the term "warlord," when applied to, say, tribal leaders in Afghanistan, isn't used to indicate that these people do nasty things to innocent people (although they often do). "Warlord" indicates that these people have political power due to their possession of a personal military force. This makes it the wrong pejorative to use against US politicians that you think are immorally hawkish. However bad their policies might be, they possess political power through a democratic process and exercise military force that is derived from an existing state.

Malou Innocent. Is she Filipina? (half-pinay?)

"Warlord" indicates that these people have political power due to their possession of a personal military force. This makes it the wrong pejorative to use against US politicians that you think are immorally hawkish. However bad their policies might be, they possess political power through a democratic process and exercise military force that is derived from an existing state.

I would say quasi-democratic process (the militarists can't lose since they basically own the process), but if you insist I'll go back to monger instead of lord. I would add, however, that the Bush regime demonstrated quite clearly that a president (or VP) can do virtually anything s/he wants with no checks and balances from Congress, with no real recourse to impeachment and with a Supreme Court that's too slow and methodical to adjudicate in time. Obama is also proving -- by refusing to investigate and prosecute his predecessors -- that there's no accountability even when power is relinquished to an opposition successor.

Quoting Wonderment: I would say quasi-democratic process (the militarists can't lose since they basically own the process), but if you insist I'll go back to monger instead of lord.

I would add, however, that the Bush regime demonstrated quite clearly that a president (or VP) can do virtually anything s/he wants with no checks and balances from Congress, with no real recourse to impeachment and with a Supreme Court that's too slow and methodical to adjudicate in time. Obama is also proving -- by refusing to investigate and prosecute his predecessors -- that there's no accountability even when power is relinquished to an opposition successor.

Except they weren't particularly successful in the longer term, were they? They lost the office for their party; they ruined their party for at least a couple of elections; they're laughingstocks, reduced to giving each other feel good awards; their national support has been reduced to a fairly pathetic rump of hard core loyalists. These sorts of things will be remembered by their successors.