Democrat Travis Childers has been elected to Congress in MS!!!

I hope I'm right but it looks like the repugnants are going to have some real problems this Fall.

i daresay, if we're all serious about this whole "taking our country back" thing, we're all going to have to get a bit more serious about following the money to the top, connecting the dots, and naming names.

and for god's sake, let's have an actual independent, 9/11 investigation.

From the entry lower down the main page, I think we have a winner:

John McBush

Osama Bin Laden unavailable?

You'd think, since he's helped keep the Republicans in power (and in wealth) he'd at least get a friggin' cabinet position

Hillary plays pretend again. Bush's only solution for gas prices is more drilling. Congress thinks Bush should stop hoarding oil. McCain trash-talks Bush on global warming. Meanwhile, Jenna gets hitched.

i used to think don rumsfeld resembled one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. not sure which, maybe the pale horse, whichever one that was.

now, i just think the old man looks like $#!+.

america laments the passing of secretary rumsfeld.

The Vatican is fine with The X-Files. Gates indirectly admits the hawks are focused on Iran.
The FDA ok'ed more potential tainted
OTC drugs from China on the U.S. market. Myanmar continues to murder its own people. High food prices force domesticated horses to fend for themselves.

Right now I would vote for a McCain Rand ticket - just to get it over with.

anon @ 19:

Right now I would vote for a McCain Rand ticket - just to get it over with.

I refuse to accept that, for I refuse to give up my rights.

Joe Tseng @ 16:

Being this is an open thread, I have to state again the problem I have with the Jon Stewart / Douglas Feith interview.

Today a lot of Americans seem to be telling themselves they were "deceived" or "lied" into war. That was the jist of Jon's interview. But if you think back to late 2002 and 2003 you'll remember that the words "pre-emptive strike" were used a lot in the papers and on tv.

Pre-emptive strike is a euphamism for preventive invasion, stating that America has the "right" to strike / invade any country before they are presumably attacked (based on the perception of threat).

This was the bush administration's "new approach" and I believe they were pretty clear about it. To claim later we were "deceived" by this administration I find this to be unbelievable.

For all those who were openly protesting the illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2002 and 2003, my hat's off to you! THANK YOU! But for the many who thought the strike would be "easy", well....

I'm not sure I understand how their emphasis on preemption undercuts the argument that they lied to us. The maladministration's argument was not that America had the right to invade anywhere it wanted, any time it felt like it, indiscriminately. (Though, I imagine more than a few of Bush's cronies would have loved to argue that.) Instead, they offered preemption against dangerous threats to our very way of life, including the regime of Saddam Hussein, who was not just stockpiling gobs of WMD with the capability of reaching New York in a New York minute, but was literally getting ready to launch them.

That wasn't true. They knew it wasn't true. But they convinced the one guy people believed was beyond reproach to puff up a bad case to the U.N., and took the opportunity 9/11 gave them to scare the ever living shit out of anyone who feared it might be true.

That's called deception.

Ron @ 21:

anon @ 19:

Right now I would vote for a McCain Rand ticket - just to get it over with.

I refuse to accept that, for I refuse to give up my rights.

The problem is that it is legal to promote the destruction of democratic institutions and there is a very large group that supports that - a large fraction of a hundred million people.

You wont make anti-democratic movements illegal and you wont change the peckerwoods minds.

Remember who ran in the primaries for the republicans - McCain had the most support and is hated by the hard right. Imagine that. Franco is seen as a soft conservative.

These people will not relent. They will never change their minds. They will never compromise. They will never tolerate. They will dig in. You will see an american insurgency on the right. I am convinced that Clinton had it easy in the 90's.

I doubt this century will see this resolved. And I doubt this century will avoid serious conflict.

This spells rock and hardplace.

Karen @ 23:

Joe Tseng @ 16:

Being this is an open thread, I have to state again the problem I have with the Jon Stewart / Douglas Feith interview.

Today a lot of Americans seem to be telling themselves they were "deceived" or "lied" into war. That was the jist of Jon's interview. But if you think back to late 2002 and 2003 you'll remember that the words "pre-emptive strike" were used a lot in the papers and on tv.

Pre-emptive strike is a euphamism for preventive invasion, stating that America has the "right" to strike / invade any country before they are presumably attacked (based on the perception of threat).

This was the bush administration's "new approach" and I believe they were pretty clear about it. To claim later we were "deceived" by this administration I find this to be unbelievable.

For all those who were openly protesting the illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2002 and 2003, my hat's off to you! THANK YOU! But for the many who thought the strike would be "easy", well....

I'm not sure I understand how their emphasis on preemption undercuts the argument that they lied to us. The maladministration's argument was not that America had the right to invade anywhere it wanted, any time it felt like it, indiscriminately. (Though, I imagine more than a few of Bush's cronies would have loved to argue that.) Instead, they offered preemption against dangerous threats to our very way of life, including the regime of Saddam Hussein, who was not just stockpiling gobs of WMD with the capability of reaching New York in a New York minute, but was literally getting ready to launch them.

That wasn't true. They knew it wasn't true. But they convinced the one guy people believed was beyond reproach to puff up a bad case to the U.N., and took the opportunity 9/11 gave them to scare the ever living shit out of anyone who feared it might be true.

That's called deception.

Just fininshed reading Neck Deep by Robert Parry. He's been on it since before Reagan.

Karen @ 23:

Joe Tseng @ 16:

Being this is an open thread, I have to state again the problem I have with the Jon Stewart / Douglas Feith interview.

Today a lot of Americans seem to be telling themselves they were "deceived" or "lied" into war. That was the jist of Jon's interview. But if you think back to late 2002 and 2003 you'll remember that the words "pre-emptive strike" were used a lot in the papers and on tv.

Pre-emptive strike is a euphamism for preventive invasion, stating that America has the "right" to strike / invade any country before they are presumably attacked (based on the perception of threat).

This was the bush administration's "new approach" and I believe they were pretty clear about it. To claim later we were "deceived" by this administration I find this to be unbelievable.

For all those who were openly protesting the illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2002 and 2003, my hat's off to you! THANK YOU! But for the many who thought the strike would be "easy", well....

I'm not sure I understand how their emphasis on preemption undercuts the argument that they lied to us. The maladministration's argument was not that America had the right to invade anywhere it wanted, any time it felt like it, indiscriminately. (Though, I imagine more than a few of Bush's cronies would have loved to argue that.) Instead, they offered preemption against dangerous threats to our very way of life, including the regime of Saddam Hussein, who was not just stockpiling gobs of WMD with the capability of reaching New York in a New York minute, but was literally getting ready to launch them.

That wasn't true. They knew it wasn't true. But they convinced the one guy people believed was beyond reproach to puff up a bad case to the U.N., and took the opportunity 9/11 gave them to scare the ever living shit out of anyone who feared it might be true.

That's called deception.

i think they even call it treason in some patriotic u.s. circles.

punishable by death by hanging.

myself, i'm opposed to the death penalty.

hope the masses keep their cool.

Karen @ 23:

Joe Tseng @ 16:

Being this is an open thread, I have to state again the problem I have with the Jon Stewart / Douglas Feith interview.

Today a lot of Americans seem to be telling themselves they were "deceived" or "lied" into war. That was the jist of Jon's interview. But if you think back to late 2002 and 2003 you'll remember that the words "pre-emptive strike" were used a lot in the papers and on tv.

Pre-emptive strike is a euphamism for preventive invasion, stating that America has the "right" to strike / invade any country before they are presumably attacked (based on the perception of threat).

This was the bush administration's "new approach" and I believe they were pretty clear about it. To claim later we were "deceived" by this administration I find this to be unbelievable.

For all those who were openly protesting the illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2002 and 2003, my hat's off to you! THANK YOU! But for the many who thought the strike would be "easy", well....

I'm not sure I understand how their emphasis on preemption undercuts the argument that they lied to us. The maladministration's argument was not that America had the right to invade anywhere it wanted, any time it felt like it, indiscriminately. (Though, I imagine more than a few of Bush's cronies would have loved to argue that.) Instead, they offered preemption against dangerous threats to our very way of life, including the regime of Saddam Hussein, who was not just stockpiling gobs of WMD with the capability of reaching New York in a New York minute, but was literally getting ready to launch them.

That wasn't true. They knew it wasn't true. But they convinced the one guy people believed was beyond reproach to puff up a bad case to the U.N., and took the opportunity 9/11 gave them to scare the ever living shit out of anyone who feared it might be true.

That's called deception.

Deception or not - the argument regarded preemption - which is criminal. (smoking gun ... mushroom cloud ... preemption. Preemption itself is criminal. I am talking about war here not a strike against a weapon on a launcher) You might argue that the deception was a shiney object that distracted from the larger issue of prosecuting a criminal war - but its the criminality that is central here. And I might add ... invisible.

They american people are concerned with loses not criminality - sadly, even the left.

The invisibility of the crime condemns the american people in my opinion.

Ron @ 28:

anon @ 25:

Ron @ 21:

anon @ 19:
I refuse to accept that, for I refuse to give up my rights.

The problem is that it is legal to promote the destruction of democratic institutions and there is a very large group that supports that - a large fraction of a hundred million people.

You wont make anti-democratic movements illegal and you wont change the peckerwoods minds.

Remember who ran in the primaries for the republicans - McCain had the most support and is hated by the hard right. Imagine that. Franco is seen as a soft conservative.

These people will not relent. They will never change their minds. They will never compromise. They will never tolerate. They will dig in. You will see an american insurgency on the right. I am convinced that Clinton had it easy in the 90's.

I doubt this century will see this resolved. And I doubt this century will avoid serious conflict.

This spells rock and hardplace.

So, what do you suggest, curl up into a fetal position and just let it happen? Get some cajunas.

I have studied most military theorists. Absent a popular movement, you wont stop this. This isnt about fear. The popular movement in the US is comsumptive materialism. The american people wont act until they are no longer comfortable.

What do I suggest? Reparations to Iraq - an apology - regional solution imposed by the nations of SW Asia - reduction of the size of the US military - a constitutional convention defining non-constitutionally defined powers in government as unconstitutional (eg. pac money, centralized party influences etc) - and defining assaults on democracy as the highest crime. (there are more)

Which wont happen.

What I hope will follow next year is substance - what I expect is shadow. I expect a focus to be on 'feel good' - followed after a time with disillusionment by some. I see permanent fractures developing here.

anon @ 33:

Ron @ 28:

anon @ 25:

Ron @ 21:

The problem is that it is legal to promote the destruction of democratic institutions and there is a very large group that supports that - a large fraction of a hundred million people.

You wont make anti-democratic movements illegal and you wont change the peckerwoods minds.

Remember who ran in the primaries for the republicans - McCain had the most support and is hated by the hard right. Imagine that. Franco is seen as a soft conservative.

These people will not relent. They will never change their minds. They will never compromise. They will never tolerate. They will dig in. You will see an american insurgency on the right. I am convinced that Clinton had it easy in the 90's.

I doubt this century will see this resolved. And I doubt this century will avoid serious conflict.

This spells rock and hardplace.

So, what do you suggest, curl up into a fetal position and just let it happen? Get some cajunas.

I have studied most military theorists. Absent a popular movement, you wont stop this. This isnt about fear. The popular movement in the US is comsumptive materialism. The american people wont act until they are no longer comfortable.

What do I suggest? Reparations to Iraq - an apology - regional solution imposed by the nations of SW Asia - reduction of the size of the US military - a constitutional convention defining non-constitutionally defined powers in government as unconstitutional (eg. pac money, centralized party influences etc) - and defining assaults on democracy as the highest crime. (there are more)

Which wont happen.

What I hope will follow next year is substance - what I expect is shadow. I expect a focus to be on 'feel good' - followed after a time with disillusionment by some. I see permanent fractures developing here.

Then work in your district to get even a stronger majority in the congress and senate. Most of the people express a lot about how they feel here but are sitting and posting their comments without putting out any real effort.

anon @ 36:

Ron @ 32:

anon @ 31:

Karen @ 23:

Deception or not - the argument regarded preemption - which is criminal. (smoking gun ... mushroom cloud ... preemption. Preemption itself is criminal. I am talking about war here not a strike against a weapon on a launcher) You might argue that the deception was a shiney object that distracted from the larger issue of prosecuting a criminal war - but its the criminality that is central here. And I might add ... invisible.

They american people are concerned with loses not criminality - sadly, even the left.

The invisibility of the crime condemns the american people in my opinion.

You continue to blame the American people who for the most part, have only the MSM to rely on for information. They have been feeding us propaganda for so long it is hard for me, as an avid reader of the news to pinpoint when the propaganda started. Don't blame the people, blame the guilty ones that perprtrated the crimes.

I blame both. It isnt fair to suggest that the people are without option here. They are being given what they want - that is the nature of for profit media. You will see a swing to the left in coming months by the for profit media - but it will be for profit not truth.

I live in Az, and my experience is that the people are surprisingly coarse. Not everyone - but that is the source of a different long term issue. Even now, people are all shades of the same gray. Its difficult to name the voices on the left who dont support the soldiers or implicitly the military industrial complex (and more). John and Nicolle appear to. I dont. I am not in their camp.

This isnt the way I would like it to be ... just what I honestly see.

So, WHAT DO YOU DOOO, to help make the changes that we all know need to be changed. I haven't heard you say anything constructive.

To all the people who responded to my comment:

I believe all of you are smart enough to know that saddam never had WMDs pointed at us, and that he was not an "immediate" threat. But even if he was, no country has the right to invade another based on perceived threat.

And that was my main point in the comment above. The pre-emptive strike doctrine was in the papers and on tv in 2002 and 2003, and the bush administration made it clear they were taking a "new approach" to terrorism and the countries that harbor terrorists (gee, that's half the world, isn't it?).

The thing that bothers me is that many of the people who were not hitting the streets protesting (that would include me, although I was openly against the war), are now trying to put all the blame on the media and/or bush admistration by claiming they were "deceived."

C'mon. Did these guys really fool you? They never fooled me, but I admit I didn't do enough to protest before the invasion.

Kudos to the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans who had the guts to openly protest.

Karen @ 40:

anon @ 31:

Karen @ 23:

Joe Tseng @ 16:

Deception or not - the argument regarded preemption

Deception or not? You said that you didn't buy the argument that people were deceived. Your problem with Stewart's interview was that he argued that we were deceived.

- which is criminal.

No argument from me here. It was criminal. So, is your real problem with Stewart's interview that he didn't focus on the criminality of preemption to begin with?

(smoking gun ... mushroom cloud ... preemption. Preemption itself is criminal. I am talking about war here not a strike against a weapon on a launcher)

Thank you for the peculiar clarification.

You might argue that the deception was a shiney object that distracted from the larger issue of prosecuting a criminal war - but its the criminality that is central here.

I would argue that people were terrorized and terrified, and that the Bush maladministration took full advantage of the fear. In so doing, they lied their asses off. Because they were literally in fear for their lives, people did not care whether the war was legal. As for the American people's ultimate culpability in the matter, I think the deception used against them mitigates it somewhat, though not entirely.

And I might add ... invisible.

Invisible? Do you mean transparent?

They american people are concerned with loses not criminality - sadly, even the left.

We're not monolithic on the left in our condemnation of the war. (Which is part of the problem.) You're correct that we should condemn preemption altogether.

The invisibility of the crime condemns the american people in my opinion.

Hmmm, you mean their inability to see the illegality of the war condemns them? In the beginning, a lot of people were saying that the war was illegal. And some people still do. (Kucinich and Paul did during the primaries.) At this point though, it's already happened.

Moreover, the maladministration also lied about the legality of the war. And the media hyped up their rationalizations as though they were serious arguments of international law. I can't fault the average joe for buying that lie either, especially under the cloud of fear that Bush nurtured.

Thank you for getting more descriptive about how the average citizen was deceived. This has been a subject on a lot of threads today.

Joe Tseng @ 39:

To all the people who responded to my comment:

I believe all of you are smart enough to know that saddam never had WMDs pointed at us, and that he was not an "immediate" threat. But even if he was, no country has the right to invade another based on perceived threat.

And that was my main point in the comment above. The pre-emptive strike doctrine was in the papers and on tv in 2002 and 2003, and the bush administration made it clear they were taking a "new approach" to terrorism and the countries that harbor terrorists (gee, that's half the world, isn't it?).

The thing that bothers me is that many of the people who were not hitting the streets protesting (that would include me, although I was openly against the war), are now trying to put all the blame on the media and/or bush admistration by claiming they were "deceived."

C'mon. Did these guys really fool you? They never fooled me, but I admit I didn't do enough to protest before the invasion.

Kudos to the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans who had the guts to openly protest.

I'm not sure anyone is arguing that Americans were deceived about the fact that we were using preemption. We're arguing that Americans were deceived about the reasons we were using preemption and the legality of doing so.

Did they fool me? No. Did I protest? In ways that I could. I wrote about it, and disseminated information and arguments to people who would listen, blogged, and called radio shows. I talked with political connections I have from my professional politicking days to find out about movements in which I could get involved.

Did I get out there in the streets and march all day? Did I do enough? No. But at the war's start, I was in law school, and I suffer from a crippling form of arthritis, which, at the time, made it impossible for me to be marching at all, much less all day.

Do I forgive the average person for not understanding the situation? I hesitate to condescend to either forgive or condemn. I do know that the American people were lied to by Bush and a complicit media amid a climate of fear and terror. I'm not so sure that people are necessarily exonerating themselves by noting that deception.

Joe Tseng @ 39:

To all the people who responded to my comment:

I believe all of you are smart enough to know that saddam never had WMDs pointed at us, and that he was not an "immediate" threat. But even if he was, no country has the right to invade another based on perceived threat.

And that was my main point in the comment above. The pre-emptive strike doctrine was in the papers and on tv in 2002 and 2003, and the bush administration made it clear they were taking a "new approach" to terrorism and the countries that harbor terrorists (gee, that's half the world, isn't it?).

The thing that bothers me is that many of the people who were not hitting the streets protesting (that would include me, although I was openly against the war), are now trying to put all the blame on the media and/or bush admistration by claiming they were "deceived."

C'mon. Did these guys really fool you? They never fooled me, but I admit I didn't do enough to protest before the invasion.

Kudos to the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans who had the guts to openly protest.

I agree with you 100% that a preemptive doctrine is insane because you give other countries the right to do the same. People have to get this myth out of their head that America always have been and always will be the sole Superpower in the world. The world is a graveyard to GREAT civilizations who thought they were invincible in their prime. If nations like China and India will stake their claim to our authority, who is to dictate that they can't start invading other nations based on "perceived threats"? I don't believe I'll be alive the day that America is invaded, but our oceans can't protect us forever if we're not more proactively trying to work with the world instead of trying to work against it.

39 Joe Tseng Says: To all the people who responded to my comment:

I believe all of you are smart enough to know that saddam never had WMDs pointed at us, and that he was not an “immediate” threat. But even if he was, no country has the right to invade another based on perceived threat.

And that was my main point in the comment above. The pre-emptive strike doctrine was in the papers and on tv in 2002 and 2003, and the bush administration made it clear they were taking a “new approach” to terrorism and the countries that harbor terrorists (gee, that’s half the world, isn’t it?).

The thing that bothers me is that many of the people who were not hitting the streets protesting (that would include me, although I was openly against the war), are now trying to put all the blame on the media and/or bush admistration by claiming they were “deceived.”

C’mon. Did these guys really fool you? They never fooled me, but I admit I didn’t do enough to protest before the invasion.

Kudos to the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans who had the guts to openly protest.

=========================================

I was in the streets protesting and i was talking to people.

People were scared literally out of their minds, the White House and the press helped to scare them out of their minds.

A prevailing mood blanketed America. Are you seriously going to blame the victims of a sophisticated propaganda campaign for the propaganda that manipulated them?

America in the late 1990's was certainly not known for its political savy. In fact it is not known for that today, but at least people are beginning to wake up. Please do not berate the people who are no longer being manipulated for becoming aware. Applaud them for taking stock of reality.

anon @ 46:

Karen @ 40:

anon @ 31:

Karen @ 23:

Deception or not - the argument regarded preemption

Deception or not? You said that you didn't buy the argument that people were deceived. Your problem with Stewart's interview was that he argued that we were deceived.

- which is criminal.

No argument from me here. It was criminal. So, is your real problem with Stewart's interview that he didn't focus on the criminality of preemption to begin with?

(smoking gun ... mushroom cloud ... preemption. Preemption itself is criminal. I am talking about war here not a strike against a weapon on a launcher)

Thank you for the peculiar clarification.

You might argue that the deception was a shiney object that distracted from the larger issue of prosecuting a criminal war - but its the criminality that is central here.

I would argue that people were terrorized and terrified, and that the Bush maladministration took full advantage of the fear. In so doing, they lied their asses off. Because they were literally in fear for their lives, people did not care whether the war was legal. As for the American people's ultimate culpability in the matter, I think the deception used against them mitigates it somewhat, though not entirely.

And I might add ... invisible.

Invisible? Do you mean transparent?

They american people are concerned with loses not criminality - sadly, even the left.

We're not monolithic on the left in our condemnation of the war. (Which is part of the problem.) You're correct that we should condemn preemption altogether.

The invisibility of the crime condemns the american people in my opinion.

Hmmm, you mean their inability to see the illegality of the war condemns them? In the beginning, a lot of people were saying that the war was illegal. And some people still do. (Kucinich and Paul did during the primaries.) At this point though, it's already happened.

Moreover, the maladministration also lied about the legality of the war. And the media hyped up their rationalizations as though they were serious arguments of international law. I can't fault the average joe for buying that lie either, especially under the cloud of fear that Bush nurtured.

I dont watch Stewart - or respect him politically. (He is funny) You have me confused with someone else I think.

Oops. My apologies. I thought you were the original author (Joe Tseng).

Dude@50, it was an aggressive invasion. However the point should be made that they were arguing for preemption and preemption is criminal. That is, they were publicly arguing for a criminal war. The american public seemed to think (wrongly) that if justified by Powell, it would be just. Which is false. It was and remains criminal - even if it were preemptive - with or without Powells deception.

52 Vman Says: In West Virginia today, more people voted for Obama than McBush.

=====================================

It is time for America to carve the Republican Ass out of the country

And hand it to them.

Joe Tseng @ 16:

Being this is an open thread, I have to state again the problem I have with the Jon Stewart / Douglas Feith interview.

Today a lot of Americans seem to be telling themselves they were "deceived" or "lied" into war. That was the jist of Jon's interview. But if you think back to late 2002 and 2003 you'll remember that the words "pre-emptive strike" were used a lot in the papers and on tv.

Pre-emptive strike is a euphamism for preventive invasion, stating that America has the "right" to strike / invade any country before they are presumably attacked (based on the perception of threat).

This was the bush administration's "new approach" and I believe they were pretty clear about it. To claim later we were "deceived" by this administration I find this to be unbelievable.

For all those who were openly protesting the illegality of the Iraq invasion in 2002 and 2003, my hat's off to you! THANK YOU! But for the many who thought the strike would be "easy", well....

Even if the sneak attack pre-emptive strike was easy and the oil ran like water to the US, It Was Wrong!

The best California can come up with is a sin tax.

The Dude @ 48:

Captain Obvious @ 22:

I just wanted to say that it's quite humorous to watch Jewish Americans being fervent liberals who are educated on the issues and think rationally about them, etc.. But, when it comes to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, or Israel's domestic discrimination against it's own non-Jewish citizens, those same liberal (Jewish) Americans suddenly turn into biased, misinformed Rethuglicans, spewing talking points and propaganda.

Say.....Is the Pope infallible? What about your goody two shoes Israel?

I know plenty of educated liberal jewish Americans who don't care much about what Israel is doing. So what is your point?

Ditto with Brits and New Labour / Tony Blair and the overt direction they went when Chimpy took power.
John Major's grey suited proto facist government was a warning not many took heed of,
they had the same publicly screamed 'family values' and private associated sleaze (on a smaller British scale) that the current crop of US Repukes suffer from.

Ron @ 32:

anon @ 31:

Karen @ 23:

Joe Tseng @ 16:

I'm not sure I understand how their emphasis on preemption undercuts the argument that they lied to us. The maladministration's argument was not that America had the right to invade anywhere it wanted, any time it felt like it, indiscriminately. (Though, I imagine more than a few of Bush's cronies would have loved to argue that.) Instead, they offered preemption against dangerous threats to our very way of life, including the regime of Saddam Hussein, who was not just stockpiling gobs of WMD with the capability of reaching New York in a New York minute, but was literally getting ready to launch them.

That wasn't true. They knew it wasn't true. But they convinced the one guy people believed was beyond reproach to puff up a bad case to the U.N., and took the opportunity 9/11 gave them to scare the ever living shit out of anyone who feared it might be true.

That's called deception.

Deception or not - the argument regarded preemption - which is criminal. (smoking gun ... mushroom cloud ... preemption. Preemption itself is criminal. I am talking about war here not a strike against a weapon on a launcher) You might argue that the deception was a shiney object that distracted from the larger issue of prosecuting a criminal war - but its the criminality that is central here. And I might add ... invisible.

They american people are concerned with loses not criminality - sadly, even the left.

The invisibility of the crime condemns the american people in my opinion.

You continue to blame the American people who for the most part, have only the MSM to rely on for information. They have been feeding us propaganda for so long it is hard for me, as an avid reader of the news to pinpoint when the propaganda started. Don't blame the people, blame the guilty ones that perprtrated the crimes.

the american people ARE to blame.

Joe Tseng @ 39:

To all the people who responded to my comment:

I believe all of you are smart enough to know that saddam never had WMDs pointed at us, and that he was not an "immediate" threat. But even if he was, no country has the right to invade another based on perceived threat.

And that was my main point in the comment above. The pre-emptive strike doctrine was in the papers and on tv in 2002 and 2003, and the bush administration made it clear they were taking a "new approach" to terrorism and the countries that harbor terrorists (gee, that's half the world, isn't it?).

The thing that bothers me is that many of the people who were not hitting the streets protesting (that would include me, although I was openly against the war), are now trying to put all the blame on the media and/or bush admistration by claiming they were "deceived."

C'mon. Did these guys really fool you? They never fooled me, but I admit I didn't do enough to protest before the invasion.

Kudos to the Michael Moores and Cindy Sheehans who had the guts to openly protest.

and it's necessary again today.

Attorney in Louisville, Ky., lawsuit wants Pope Benedict XVI to testify on clergy sex abuse
BRETT BARROUQUERE
AP News

May 12, 2008 22:36 EST

Pope Benedict XVI should be questioned soon about clergy sex abuse in the Catholic church because he is the most knowledgeable person on the topic and his advanced age makes future testimony unlikely, an attorney said Monday.

Many similar lawsuits have named the pope, the Vatican and other high-ranking church officials as defendants but have failed.

This request comes as part of a lawsuit by three men claiming top church officials should have warned about sexual abuse by priests in the Archdiocese of Louisville. A federal judge last year let those claims stand while dismissing other aspects of the lawsuit. It's now pending before the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

Attorney William McMurry said Pope Benedict XVI has an unparalleled knowledge of the scope of sex abuse complaints because before becoming pope, he led Vatican offices that were directly involved with the investigation of sexual abuse by clerics.

"The pope has certain knowledge relevant to this case," said McMurry, who on Monday filed the motion seeking a court order for the pope's testimony.

All the talk about "re-branding" the Republican party reminds me of a quote by Aldous Huxley:

There will never be enduring peace unless and until human beings come to accept a philosophy of life more adequate to the cosmic and psychological facts than the insane idolatries of nationalism and the advertising man’s apocalyptic faith in Progress towards a mechanized New Jerusalem.

I wonder if the revelation that Resident Bush gave up his golf game out of respect for American deaths in Iraq will cause his approval ratings to go up?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/bush-i-gave-up-golf-for-t_n_101...

It is instructive that Bush Junior is able to equate thousands losing their lives (through his own fraud, misrule and stupidity) with a spoiled wastrel being deprived of one of his idle amusments. He comes off as more of a sociopath every day.

HRC's win in WV propbably isn't as significant as she will undoubdtedly claim. WV voted for Bush. They apparently haven't learned anything from that. I will never understand blue collar voters voting for republicans, including republicans like HRC. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Daily Reading pt 2...

Rove refuses to testify in Congressional inquiry into Siegelman case - http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/05/rove_tells_house_panel_hell_an.html
"Rove tells House panel he'll answer questions in writing. ...Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee had given Rove until Monday to agree to appear voluntarily, and said they would issue a subpoena if he declined. Siegelman, a Democrat, has alleged that Rove influenced the federal investigation that led to his conviction in 2006 on corruption charges. Rove has denied he interfered in the case." --Now if they can get that subpoena enforced...

Valerie Plame CIA leak case not going away -- 'Ms Plame's lawyers have now asked a federal appeals court to send the case back to a judge to consider its merits.' ... Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Richard Armitage and Scooter Libby are the accused.
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7393062.stm

Racist Secret Service E-Mails - http://www.slate.com/id/2191202/?wpisrc=newsletterentry/0/
Lets hope the ones assigned to Obama aren't corruptible....

Firms Seek Patents on 'Climate Ready' Altered Crops; So what happens when large conglomerates control our food?
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR200805...

GOP Truth/Republican Corruption: The California Republican Party's answer to a $20 billion budget deficit? Tax loopholes for yacht owners. - http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/yachtparty

Cannes '08: Michael Moore plots sequel to 'Fahrenheit 9/11' - http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2008/05/cannes-08-...

From U.S. News and World Report: McCain's Age and Past Health Problems Could Be An Issue in the Presidential Race - http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/05/09/mccains-age...

I suppose I should be cheering for Minnesota Tim. Get the Cheney-wanna-be mealy-mouthed weasel of an SOB out of Minnesota. Not one dollar for the commons with that bastard. Education, transportation, health care for the poor -- screw 'em all. That's Timmy. Never a tax increase -- just a gazillion fee increases and property tax increases that hurt the poor disproportionately more. The perfect Bush-era Republican Governor voted in by the Minnesotans Al Franken still thinks are so liberal from his childhood memories. To give Timmy credit, he has his "I'm the one in this room being resolute and reasonable" Big Daddy 'tude worn on a thin and somewhat nerdy frame honed down pretty good. On the other hand, that 'tude is about all he has going for him.

The Huckster scares me actually. Might be my working class background but I find him darn sane and likable in 4-minute TV appearances. I can suspend the reality that he's crazy while he's goofing it up for some non-substantive "just folks" spot.

But in my heart I'd like to see Condie go for it. The eternal war and empire, death and hatred, dream ticket for the 20% of fear-crazed and greed-crazed Americans who want to see everything outside the U.S. blown up and everybody who criticizes policy put in a camp. Just for the fun of confusing the neo-nazis -- "They're perfect --- but, but, but...(she's black)."

scarlet p. @ 2:

McCain should pick Vitter for VP: balance out the old age issue with a Veep who likes to wear diapers.

You oughta get a prize for this one! Brilliant!

Serious - What is your point by posting this?

Well they managed to squeak a muslim into the race cleverly disguised as a Christian- so it would be perfect for Huckabee to get Obama's VP spot. Then these two can strategize the perfect religious war to finally tear apart the people and the rest of the world for that matter which I believe has been the plan all along.

This whole charade has finally reached complete lunacy and anyone who can or will even try to make sense of it- is officially out to lunch forever.

This country is toast!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR200805...
this is worth a read.

Dunno if anyone has considered this (I'm sure someone has), but what are the odds of Lieberman as McCain's VP? How sweet would it be for him to lose his chairmanship, switch to the 'Pubs, and lose his second run at the Vice Presidency?

Okay, I know it's a stretch, but a guy can dream, can't he?

Am I really gonna post 3 in a row?

See the doco The Future Of Food. They're here, they're queer, get used to it, they're Monsanto.