It is interesting to compare the articles run yesterday by the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/07detain.html) and the BBC website (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6728675.stm) on this story. Only the BBC story finds it relevant to mention the disappearance of children. Is this more editorial pressure being exerted on the Times by the administration or is it the Times policing itself?

But rest assured, the headline on this week's Weekly World News is "Angels Join in War on Terror", with the sub-head "God has had enough".

I'm not God, but I've had quite enough, too. How do we get discussions of vital issues into the general media when all we get is Paris Hilton and angels joining in the war?

Why is that?

$

That would be our government, not yours!

David Broder actually came out in favor of sentences for both Libby and Hilton: http://tinyurl.com/3y8cz8

Of course, after reading Broder's column, it could be argued that Broder had to support Libby's sentence because he has met and spent time with the judge. Keeping to Broder's character, he then has to worship at the feet of this powerful and knowledgeable person. Broder also does parrot the RWNM party line that there is no underlying crime.

Look for Gore/Bloomberg to win. Gore has the knowledge, experience and intelligence, Blomberg has the funds and Unity08 will get them on all the ballots. Even better if Guiliani is the Republican candidate. I like Hilary a lot, but with her as the nominee, the anti-Clinton hysteria we saw from the right against Bill was nothing compared to what will come out against her. I actually expect violence in the streets to erupt if she were to win.

I agree that Unity08 looks on the surface like Nader all over again, and in most scenarios for the 2008 elections, I think that is the case. However, I truly believe that the ugliness that would be unleashed with Hillary as the nominee would open the door for it to work.

If Obama or Edwards or Gore is the nominee, I'll probably spend six months working full time as a volunteer in the local campaign office. I would do this even though right now I am incredibly upset with the party for lacking courage. Backing down on Iraq timetables and keeping impeachment off the table are unforgivable and leave me fantasizing about the kick in the teeth both parties would get with a victory by an outside group. Unity08 only works with Bloomberg on the ticket because of financial considerations, but I could never support him as the presidential candidate. Gore would have to head the ticket to give it credibility.

If our country were a corporation, the auditors for this year would be required to attach a note questioning its viability as a "going concern". It's not at all clear anyone among the current slate of candidates can undo the damage that has been done. Nobody on the scene has even presented a credible roadmap on how to achieve this. Gore's new book does an excellent job of describing the range of problems but also falls short in terms of a vision for the way forward.

Clark's comments effectively pointed out just how reckless Lieberman has become. That is only one side of the battle, however. In addition to countering the sabre rattling, the battle to sort through the disinformation that will be dished out on Iran in the coming months will be tough. If even ABC News has found that a propaganda campaign is coming (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/05/bush_authorizes.html) then you can bet it will be strong and ugly. Since Iran already is known to supply weapons and expertise in Palestine and Lebanon, sorting out information from disinformation will take some effort. Perhaps Glenn or one of the usual posters here can take on the challenge of building a database of accusations as they come out, along with some investigation into both the attributions in the original publication as well as any potential evidence to support or refute the claim. Each of us then will need to do all we can to distribute careful, supported analysis in letters to our local newspapers, friends and elected officials. The future of our republic is at stake.

And yet they are highly vulnerable to being conned -- as we've seen with the parade of neo-con conmen they've fallen victim to (I shed no tears, not for them, but for the millions of unfortunates who have suffered because of them), and that master con-man Ahmed Chalabi. They -- these Grand Imperial Masters -- were powerless in the face of these flattering cons, and they fell for them lock and stock and barrel, repeatedly.

Your comment assumes that the Bush syndicate actually cares about truth or reality. My take is that they used Chalabi simply because he was willing to say something that was useful to their cause. They were going to invade Iraq no matter what, and they gladly used anyone and anything they thought would help their cause.

As for when they back down, in my view it is always accompanied with a secret "work around" that is even more dastardly than the tactic on which they were called.