The most dramatic moment came when Rep. Patrick Kennedy chastised the press corps for skipping out on the discussion:  "There's two press people in this gallery.... We're talking about Eric Massa 24-7 on the TV, we're talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press? No press."

He added: "The press of the United States is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country. It's despicable, the national press corps right now."

Watch the video:

Balancing out this "expert" point of view are "conservatives," "supporters of military commissions" and "the Republican line"--all of which argue that the civilian court system is unnecessary and military tribunals should be exclusively used to try those accused of terrorism.

Conspicuously missing from this framing are those who argue that military tribunals are unconstitutional, and that even people accused of terrorism-related crimes are still entitled to the guarantees of the Bill of Rights--people like Judge Andrew Napolitano and, well, the Supreme Court. But apparently they don't meet the New York Times' criteria as "experts."

Liberals in the House, who have spent much of the past year complaining that other congressional Democrats and the White House are insufficiently progressive, will get a chance this week to vent about one of their biggest concerns: the war in Afghanistan.

To say that lawmakers are "venting" is a short way of saying that they're wasting time with pointless complaining.

And what are they whining about, anyway? Nothing special--just whether or not the war complies with the law.

The resolution will invoke the 1973 War Powers Act, which Congress passed in protest of the escalation of the Vietnam War by a series of presidents without formal congressional authorization. It requires congressional approval for a president to put troops in a military conflict for more than 90 days. Congress passed a resolution authorizing military force in Afghanistan in 2001, after the Sept. 11 attacks, and some congressional scholars doubt Congress can invoke the act now to force changes to President Obama's war policy.

As Robert Naiman wrote: "The Pentagon doesn't want Congress to debate Afghanistan. The Pentagon wants Congress to fork over $33 billion more to pay for the current military escalation, no questions asked, no restrictions imposed for a withdrawal timetable or an exit strategy."

The media don't seem to want to have a debate over Afghanistan either.

McPeak's op-ed does mimic the form of an argument by beginning by stating a premise--but that premise is wrong. After asserting that the discussion over changing the military's anti-gay rules "should start with the question, 'What are armed forces for?,'" he continues, "Assuming the services exist to fight and win wars, those seeking fundamental change in the composition of combat units carry a special burden of proof." Elsewhere, he restates this idea by saying that the military services "have no higher responsibility than to organize, train and equip formations that are effective on the battlefield."

But the rationale for having a military is not to win wars; it's to keep your country free. (McPeak may recall that his oath as an Air Force officer began, "I will support and defend the Constitution..."--that's the military's actual highest responsibility.) Even if one believed that an ethnically cleansed military motivated by a racist ideology would be a more effective fighting force--with a stronger "warrior culture" and greater "unit cohesion"--that would in no way justify reorganizing the Defense Department along supremacist lines. No military is a democracy, of course, but a democracy can only have a military that is consistent with democratic values.

Which leads me to wonder: When President Harry Truman ordered the desegregation of the military, did the New York Times publish an op-ed from a retired officer arguing that only a racist military could be counted on to win wars? (Glancing through the New York Times' archives, I didn't see any, but they're somewhat awkward to search.) If they did publish such an op-ed, are today's editors proud that their institution included the racist point of view? If they didn't, are they sorry that their predecessors failed to be so inclusive?

It's a good bet that in 60 years, the homophobic policies of the military will be seen in the same light as military segregation is today. And people looking back on the history of how it changed will see that the New York Times allowed homophobia to have its say. I doubt that this will be seen as a proud moment.