Certainly many people have been confused and embarrassed by the media’s refusal to act like the Washington Post’s reporters during the Watergate episode.

To assuage my disappointment with the Media, I have come to certain conclusions.

First, what the Washington Post reporters did was rare. Thus they stood out. They were an exception rather than the rule.

Second, the Media’s action and reaction related to the Iraq invasion can be seen more clearly when comparing this behavior to behavior taken during the Joseph McCarthy hearings of the 1950’s. The Media are mostly a collection of average people who respond as an average person would. They know when they are threatened and they will cower responsively.

Third, the importance of the bullying and the threats used by the Bush administration can not be taken lightly. They have had decades of experience with these practices, with almost all outcomes being successful. They have the confidence to wield power because they have never been stricken in response.

The Media will attack the Bush administration when it sees that it is weakened. Interestingly, recently the Media has gained a backbone as the Military has expressed opposition to presidential policy. Just as was the case with Joe McCarthy.

There are labels and then there are labels. Some are created to define others. Some are self-created to unfocus the truth.

One should keep in mind the old saying, “The only difference between libel and label is a small I.”

I am offering a bit of enlightenment to those who refuse to comprehend how suffering causes a people to rise up against their oppressors.

Most are aware of the tragedy that happened at Virginia Tech. Imagine this type of thing happening every day for the rest of this year and all of next year in a community that you call home. Welcome to Baghdad. Imagine how one’s life is affected by such horror and chaos every day. The controlling force in Baghdad will be held responsible for the security situation in the minds of Baghdad’s citizens. How should the citizens feel about those who brought about this condition?

Ignorant and stupid people like Perle are cowards of the first rate. Their only use is as placeholders for a collection of atoms that will someday be reconfigured into a more beneficial design.

From the perspective of the law, this ruling was an abomination. Unfortunately most people will support or denounce the ruling based on their “choice” perspective. That perspective should not have been relevant to this ruling. The ruling should have been based on points of law, and the issue that laws should be well written and clearly defined. That was not the case. Morality issues were used to justify the law rather than analytic thought.

In my opinion the law in question is written in this manner, “It is illegal to do bad things.”

After emotions run their course and law analysts calmly dissect this ruling, they will be aghast and embarrassed at the amateurism displayed by the majority justices.

Nice article. One point of disagreement: President Bush is a firm Calvinist. However, Bush presumes that the Calvin in question is from “Calvin and Hobbes” fame. Thus Bush’s theology, “if you don't remember it, you're not responsible for it”, etc. makes perfect sense.

Much can be “determined” by what artifacts a person chooses to display.

Mr. Bush displays the two western pieces because they remind him of simpler times. Most likely they are reminders of childhood innocence, especially with his growing up in the 1950’s when there were apparently “good” guys and “moral” ideals. Clearly he not longer feels he is surrounded by such ideals, thus the need to have them displayed.

The display of Hussein’s mounted gun is definitely a phallic display. Mr. Bush assuredly will show this off to others, mostly males, with glee. He probably asks others to handle his gun also.

What I would find interesting is what he displays that was given to him by his wife, and what he displays that was given to him by Ms. Rice.

Bush and War supporters become more like yapping, dirt stained, little poodles every day, the echoing caused by their hollowness inside. There is no thought process behind their decrees, only the thrill they feel when plunging their flaccid rhetoric into their conspirator’s gaping hole of logic.

As the article mentions, Bush is talking like Churchill. Unfortunately for Bush, and perhaps for Churchill, Churchill is dead.

In response to Doug Brooks', (President of IPOA), letter, are the following questions and comments.

First, U.S. taxpayers are paying Iraqis to supply security and reconstruct their country. Well, well, well.

Second, you state that contractors are arriving from 100 different countries. Is this what is called obfuscation?

Third, of the many contractors that have been held to account or penalized contractually, why are no specific instances mentioned in your letter?

Fourth, your paragraph has no significant legal definition.

Fifth, your letter would have been only one paragraph long if you removed your deep-seated horror of morality.

Sixth, since contractors act only in peace and stability operations, because they are humanitarians, … sorry, can’t go on after that. Logic has left the building.

Finally, in response to the last paragraph, your credibility leads one to incredulity.

Regards.