zeezee -- I want to write something about the sadness, and the lunacy, of any human being calling for mass punishment or murder of large groups of innocent people just because someone else in that other group called for mass punishment or murder of groups of innocent people, but it seems quite hopeless to slice through that insanity.

While there are countless examples of desire to exterminate Israel, I can't seem to remember any mention of exterminating Iran, Iraq, or even the Palestinians. Your statement is unfair and unbalanced.

I repeatedly tried to get you to notice your own quoted dumbass school of thought in which, like the dumbass moron right wing which has so deeply failed both the United States and the rest of the world for the last 30 years in bolstering real security, you and your meathead friends recommend approaches to known problems which (a) have no actual argument that strategy A would actually lead to desired result B (mainly because you simply don't care); and (b) in reality are likely to worsen situations instead of achieving desired result B.

I'm sorry, I made the mistake of thinking you were concerned about people killing each other. All you had to say was, let them fight it out, and saved us a lot of wasted time.

Perhaps you should consider the idea that labeling those killed Al-Qaeda serves the purpose of not being at war with all of Iraq.

How would you propose allying with the Sunni if is trumpeted that the US just killed a bunch of Sunni? The same goes for the Shia. That is the whole of Iraq right there. Isn't trying to cause the least offense to the people we are trying to help a good thing?

1) AlQaida is Sunni. Thus, if we were to ally with the Sunni faction (after invading and basically destroying their political organization) we would be allying with those who we allegedly invaded to overthrow.

We are not at war with the all the adherents of the Sunni religion. I think that is an important distinction.

It would also mean that we're taking sides in a civil war and that's a good way to really bollock things up (as if we haven't already done that).

Perhaps "ally" is too strong a term. We have to bond in some way with the Iraqis to make any progress, both Sunni and Shia. Without the help of the locals there is no chance of isolating the militants.

(2) The other problem is that our press isn't supposed to be a propaganda arm of the government. If the government were to announce that sugar no longer causes cavities, would you expect the press to pass that along with no question regarding its legitimacy?

Actually I would. The press will publish anything as long as it's sensational. Like the daily death toll, man made global warming, the Duke rape case, and CIA leaks. If you want precision, then they should use the word "militant" or something else to be more accurate about the distinction between civilians and combatants.

It seems a videotape showing Hillary being intimately involved in an illegal campaign contribution has surfaced. Hmmmm. Perjury, campaign finance violations, it could be a few years in the pokey for Hillary. Bill will have to find a sympathetic ear for the duration. Heh.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320

It seems a videotape showing Hillary being intimately involved in an illegal campaign contribution has surfaced. Hmmmm. Perjury, campaign finance violations, it could be a few years in the pokey for Hillary. Bill will have to find a sympathetic ear for the duration. Darn.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320

That's been out there for awhile. Did you wet yourself from excitement when you saw it?

No, but it certainly made my day. It seems that the occasion is the public release of said tape. This is exactly the same kind of offense that did in Tom Delay. I look forward to it's being brought up nationally should Hillary get within sniffing distance of the nomination. If nothing else it's a graphic depiction of outright lying, similar to Bill's. It's a family thing.

Note: Please do not consider this a dialogue. The question was purely rhetorical.-- Michael Harold

Not to worry, it seems that you, the guy in a well, LWM, antimous, and a few others are RWA type trolls. No discussion desired is fine with me.

But oddly, Congress has given up on the remedies they could invoke, no matter what the People have to say about it. That leaves the People with a very limited range of options, doesn't it? -- Ché Pasa

Perhaps you should consider that the representatives of "the people" know something you don't. Something, that Glenn is trying to get across, but your obsession has blinded you to. The time isn't right, the pressure from "the people" isn't there, and the Democrats understand that in the close examination of who did what, they won't look as good as Bush does.

You might also consider that your folks couldn't budge Gonzales, and you think impeachment of the President would work instead? This is a clear reality check and you're not passing.

that the "Fairness Doctrine" will more accurately be called the "Censorship Doctrine"? You know, now that truth in advertising is the cause du jour?

It's the garden spot of North America from what I hear.

It seems that most of the commenters here are forgetting the circumstance of his incarceration. HE WAS WITH THE TALIBAN IN AFGHANISTAN SHOOTING AT U.S. SOLDIERS. Most commenters here are also missing the difference between the Brits and Hicks. The Brits rolled over and co-operated immediately and with no reservations. Hicks did not. His choice. My concern for him stops there.

and Rahm Emmanuel's threat to defund Cheney's Executive Branch budget. This should be right up your alley, and considerably more interesting than another rehash of how all of America is despicably depraved.