The US went to war against Iraq in 1991, under George H.W. Bush. At various times during the 1990s, President Clinton ordered bombing for a variety of reasons, including protecting the Kurdish areas.

2003 was not the first time the United States bombed - or invaded - Iraq.

However, Snopes.com says the letter is most likely a fake. Check out:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/mccain/vacation.asp

Obama08Now writes "I don't even remember what McVeigh was mad about, but I don't think it was anything sane people could agree on."

Actually, I recall that one of Mr. McVeigh's primary motivations was the 1991 George Bush war against Iraq, which he fought in, and was then discarded with the other GIs. Gore Vidal corresponded with him in prison, up until his execution.

But McVeigh's motivations weren't generally well known, because they actually were something that sane people could agree on. And the Bush Junior people had to shut him up quick, to make sure it wouldn't get out.

This gave Mr. Cheney the added advantage of being able to assert later, without fear of contradiction, that Saddam Hussein had been behind the destruction of the Murrah Building.

Just a reminder.

Nov 4th is coming up; if you can, vote early (and not by mail). See Greg Palast's election page, stealbackyourvote.com. The fix is already in, but there are ways around it.

This has been a public service announcement.

"B. and millions of others have bought into the concept that personality and "character" matter more than issues."

Maybe. And maybe it's because most of the coverage of the candidates drones on unceasingly about the bogus "character" issue, to the exclusion of what they actually did in the past, the veracity of their assertions, and honest evaluations of their proposals.

Face it - on cable TV in particular, which is what people watch - pretty much all you get is the "character" talk. And it comes straight out of the right wing sludge machine. That even they are turning on McCain is interesting - and fortuitous for Obama and the rest of the Democrats running.

Usually, the right is more cohesive and on-message than that, knowing it's not which of their guys who get in, it's all about getting them into office with all the power and access to public money that results.

Oh - I'm sorry. You already said that. Maybe I ought to read better...

In the continuing proofreading battle, timbuktom sez: 'You might suggest, "...elect the BETTER man..."'

That presumes that the Presidential candidates are Barack Obama and John McCain. The candidates for President also include Robert Barr, Ralph Nader, and Chuck Baldwin. Cynthia McKinney is also running, although she's not a "man." There are probably others running who are even less known.

Not that they have a snowball's chance in H***, of course. But because there are more than two of them, the term "best" rather than "better" is more correct.

For semanticists whose concerns go beyond mere grammar, no, neither McCain nor Obama are likely to be the "best" in the whole wide world. And, sadly, of just those who have made it on the ballot, there's no guarantee that the "best" of them will actually be elected.

Feel better now?

(1) With McCain's campaign on a tight budget and being overspent 10 to 1 (or whatever the ratio), it would seem reasonable that they would set some limit on Palin's clothing sxpenses - say,$10,000.

Instead, Palin and her buyer just went all out.

Were they unaware of the campaign's financial situation? Did they assume someone would step in to pick up the tab? Were they planning to sock it to the US Taxpayers after the election?

Why didn't they care how much they spent?

(2) Why didn't they know that this would become publicized? Too many decades of the news media being in the tank for Republicans? Over the last few months, Republicans have been made aware, to their dismay, of the existence of those twentieth century marvels, videotape, film, and sound recording devices.

Many of these are actually portable! In fact, in the twenty-first century, just about everybody carries one (or more).

So - if you say something stupid or do something stupid in public, someone will probably get a recording. And if you do this ON THE AIR, it's permanent. Get into the habit of checking YouTube and "the Google" to see what you shouldn't have done.

And yet - the McCain campaign just acted as if nobody would ever find out.

(3) Since at least the 1960s, the Republican Party has been breeding up new generations of followers. Young people willing to put their reason and ethics on hold have been treated to all-expense paid training, high-paying jobs as operatives or in "think" tanks, and for the reasonably competent, a free pass into government, where the real money can be gotten at.

It's looking as if they've scraped too close to the bottom of the barrel. The latest crop of young Goppers doesn't even seem to realize that the secret to success lies in remaining presentable in public, while saving the hateful spew and large living for party meetings.

They've reached an evolutionary dead end.

Given that use of campaign funds for clothing is actually illegal - per the McCain/Feingold law - it would have been smarter to have Cyndee McCain take Sarah on a shopping spree, instead of a male staffer, and on her own, non-reimbursed credit card. That would keep it "in the family" and could be spun to show something about how Republicans are just generous good people

But McCain and his henchmen aren't showing much smarts. Nor generosity or "goodness."

I hope people who've said they're "tired" of the $150,000 clothing story are reconsidering. It's been the gift that keeps on giving. I for one look forward to hearing more about how the big clothes buy is tearing apart the McCain campaign and the RNC.