Not that Olbermann, or that "joke", was ever funny or clever to begin with.

The simple facts are these:

First, the U.S. defeated the Iraqi Army in a cakewalk. That not-so-inconsiderable "mission" was magnificently "accomplished." When the USS Abraham Lincoln sailed into port in the California at the conclusion of the major hostilities, the carrier group had indeed achieved "Mission: accomplished" status.

Second, the postwar situation has been difficult, due in no small measure to the intransigence of other forces in the region, most notably Iran. But the situation is improving, and our military forces there, as they routinely are around the world, are a force for peace and stability.

Our imperfect management of post-Saddam Iraq is, in all of its imperfection, like any other extremely complicated human endeavor. To suggest that US forces there are not fostering stability is simply crazy.

If, God forbid, Mrs. Clinton is elected President, the likely good news is that she won't fulfill any of her promises to abandon Iraq to terrorists. The Clintons, as vicious as they may be as political operatives, aren't that stupid. Hopefully we will never find out and a Republican President will lead the nation.

I have often wondered -- is that Cheney and Bush are just too soft, and not willing to do what it takes to catch or kill the guy? That hardly seems likely.

Is it that Bush and Cheney haven't been willing to invade the Pakistan frontier? Is doing that something that the Salon readership wants to see happen?

Is it that Bush and Cheney haven't expended enough resources in terms of military assets in that regard? Is the Salon readerhip in agreement that we should expand our military presence in the Hindu Kush to do that?

If we are all in agreement that catching or killing bin Laden would be good, but that at present he appears to be neutralized, and there are some downsides and risks to doing more than what we are currently doing, just to pop a cap in his ass, then what are the main areas of disagreement?

Or is this all just another excuse, another occasion, by which to attack President Bush?

Naturally, we have to leave out RFK's sons, since no accurate records exist as to how many of their relations were the subject of multiple Kennedy screwings in a single day.

Seriously, how do these Kennedy edorsements work? Three of them announcing endrosements on the same weekend? Do they have family board meetings? Tribal councils? Does Joe Kennedy II still get to vote on who the family will publicly endorse, even though he has a felony record? Do they even have a vote, or is it up to the Don to decide? One wonders if Teddy is even the current Don, or if Caroline is the new Don. (Santino is dead.) Would the other heads of the five families accept a woman as Don?

What do the Kennedys suppose that their endorsment(s), such as they are, mean to the rest of the country? Seems to me that a Kennedy endorsement for the Presidency is like the kiss of death. But to say that would be too cruel, on so many levels, wouldn't it?

http://bushandcheneysuck.com/

So, exactly how long has it been since Salon voiced its disapproval of "www.bushandcheneysuck.com"?

Or, is "bushandcheneysuck.com" a Salon sponsor? Salon editors or contributors, perhaps?

Because I have had about enough of Harry Reid as the majority leader and Pat Leahy as Chairman of Judiciary.

Face it, Joe, the Salonistas hate you and they'd happily see you dead if they had their way about it. So why preserve the Democrat majority in the Senate for them? Why not just switch? Personally, I'd give you free reign to run the agenda in the Senate, just to end the Democrat leadership of Judiciary, and get all of the Bush judicial nominees through before the end of the year.

So, yeah, Joe, just do it! Quit faking it! Quit the Democrats once and for all, and join the Republicans!

You'd think that every liberal, every Democrat, every 'progressive' would be lining up to kiss your ass every day just for not turning over the Senate majority. But no, Joe, you'r not pure enough for them. Hell, these people didn't elect you. They wanted Ned Freaking Lamont. So screw them, I say. Join us, and you'll make a difference in the Senate agenda.

I see that just one or two comments down, some erstwhile memeber of the Salon readership has said that he or she "would rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary." Now is that kind of thinking newsworthy?

I actually find the nauseating prospect of a Hillary Clinton Presidency preferable to an Obama Presidency. (I find either one preferable to the mere existence of an Edwards Campaign but I guess I don't have to worry about the next Edwards campaign until 2012.)

But the point is, there are still nominations to be made, and if some Republicans are really blustering about McCain's past antics, I regard it all as part of the campaign to get Mitt Romney nominated. I'd be happy with either one.

If you want some serious hatred, just wait until Hillary or Obama are actually nominated, and the Republicans have a nominee.

By the way, since we won't be hearing from Edwards until he begins his 2012 campaign, what WERE the "causes" he has been "fighting" for? How long have they been "his" causes?

And the notion of an Obama-Edwards tcket? HAHA! Has anyone ever, in American history, served as the Veep nominee on TWO failed tickets?

We Republicans should be so lucky to get an Obama-Edwards ticket. Obama, if he's actually nominated for President (Obama is probably going to be Hillary's Veep nominee) is going to have to pick someone to provide his campaign with adult supervision...