To "change the word of the living God" is much easier than to change than the Constitution. Christian ministers of all sorts have been doing willy-nilly for 2000 years. Amending the Constitution requires a lot more effort.

Everything you say is true. But these people want you to call them crazy. That is how they can turn the conversation from why and how a war will benefit or hurt us to irrelevant topics like how the Iranians/Al-queida/Sunnis/Shia/goddless commie bastards all want to kill us and always have (at least since 1979).

I suggest instead of attacking their false assessments and premises as foolish, pressure them to explain exactly how we can achieve the stated goal of regime change (assuming it is "necessary"). Should we nuke em? Or just carpet bomb them? Assassins? What is the plan, Stan? While all of these methods may succeed in removing the current leadership, the obvious question then becomes, as Dick Cheney so logically laid out, what comes next? How do they plan on installing a more suitable regime.

Another point. If we intend to bomb Iran, what would we expect the Iranians to do in response? They can't reach the US with their missiles we sold them. But they can reach our troops in Iraq. If you were the leader of Iran, what would you do in response to a US attack? How are we going to protect our troops?

I believe that as these "experts" are forced to flesh out their plans, the total lunacy of them is brought to light. Right from the horse's mouth. Instead of pulling back on the reins, give all the rope they want. I'm betting they will hang themselves.

Of course, this requires interviewers to want to help stop this craziness. This requires us crazy liberals to get a backbone and a brain and control the conversation.

The best satire is always true, that is what makes it so funny. The Post is afraid of the truth. The truth here is fundamentalist religions of all types are the fad these days, and all flavors of these treat women as subordinate to men. Interestingly, when any kind of Conservatism (Muslim or Christian) looks to the past for guidance, it always seems to bring back this choice for the social order. Some might wonder if they are overcompensating for their shortcomings.

Interesting that a Republican who hates Hillary so much would choose Canada as the place to flee to? Why? A followup question would have been great.

I stopped worrying about sports "scandals" when I read "Ball Four" as a kid in the 70s. It doesn't matter what today's athletes do or don't do, it is the enjoyment of the game that that has value. Everyone forgets that Mickey Mantle was a drunken womanizer, Pete Rose did 'greenies" (why do you think he was called Charlie Hustle) and Doc Ellis pitched on acid. I also remember a wife swapping controversy, Karras and Horning gambling, etc., etc. No era is free or particularily blighted by scandals.

Young people do stupid and dangerous things. When they have access to lots of money they are able to act on more of these stupid impulses.

Nothing has really changed, people just are ignorant about the past. There are no more or worse scandals now, we just forget or compartmentalize the past.

Sports figures are not heros, they are entertainers. Just like one grows too old for the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, hero worship should also end with childhood.

Jane went right to the weakness of Stephen Colbert super pundit. He is not the macho, super male selling his sperm over the internet, he is actually a very intelligent funny man. It is the one and only time I have seen him come out of character, ever. He was completely befuddled, he knew it, Jane knew it. She was perfect. Hanoi Jane, turned super sex kitten totally destroying supermacho right wing pundit. She was perfect. Her talent is amazing. I find it hard to believe you are missing the big picture here. Think about it, who won that debate? Could she have been more effective defending the environment or arguing against the war?

The Gerbil is an has always been a moron.

I guess that means we can conclude that AG Gonzalez has executed his job exactly as W. wanted. Seems to reason then that W. wanted investigations into republican scandals stopped and ones into democrats ginned up. Sounds impeachable to me.

It is about time that someone pointed this out. I would not trust Rove as far as I could throw him. I am willing to wager he will lie to congress whether under oath or not. Of course, this assumes that the long drawn out court cases on presidential priviledge get settled in by the Supremes correctly. Unfortunately, I doubt he ever will be seen under oath. That doesn't mean the Dems shouldn't go forward all the way to the SCOTUS. It will not only keep the public eye on the Bushie's misdeeds until 08, it will also highlight the R's hypocrisy during the Clinton Impeachment.

P.S. Miss your weekly commentary on the Franken Show! You two made a great pair.

There doesn't seem to be any federal investigations into election fraud in Ohio, but the state appears to be acting. Where is the DOJ on this? Oh that's right the Dems are now in charge in Ohio.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/beaconjournal/news/state/16947063.htm

Why does W continue to rely on the very questionable legal skills of the people who got him into this trouble? Is he really so dumb that he doesn't remember Clinton and Nixon's problems?