The DOJ attorney firings is just the tip of the iceberg of the much bigger scandal. The USA firings were focused on "voter fraud" which was just one tactic employed by the Republicans in a much grander conspiracy. The worst of it -- and the facts that Gonzo and company must shield at all costs -- is the wholesale vote stealing such as occurred in Ohio in 2004. At this point, there should be no doubt that Kerry was the actual winner in 2004 and Bush was illegally inaugurated not once, but twice.

America ceased being a functional democracy in 2000.

Before he became Bush's consigliere, he was an attorney for Enron. Makes perfect sense now.

It should be noted in any discussion of domestic spying that -- as has been documented by numerous former Bush insiders (DiIulio, O'Neil, Clark, etc.) -- the Bush administration "doesn't do policy." Everything is based on political calculation. It's all they do.

Even the Iraq War itself can be described more in terms of a political strategy for the 2002 mid-terms and the 2004 presidential elections than as a true geopolitical/national-security policy decision.

Since everything the Bush administration does should be viewed through a political prism, we shouldn't describe Bush's domestic spying as a legitimate national security strategy at this late date considering all previous actions and evidence to the contrary.

I think it's a safe assumption that the Bush administration's illegal domestic spying program was conceived and executed not to spy on terrorists, but to be used to gather dirt for political blackmail against political opponents and the press.

Since the FISA laws granted retroactive warrants and were virtually never denied, and since the Bush administration has *never* shown an interest in the legitimate functions of good governance, it is naive to come to any other conclusion other than that Bush and the neocons have abused the domestic spying program for political extortion.

The Republicans' stiff-arm salutes and the press' and Democrats' feeble opposition to this blatant illegality should only strengthen this conclusion.

Ron Paul committed the unpardonable sin for Republican politicians: he told the truth. US foreign policy often causes unintended -- and deadly -- consequences.

For those that have painted themselves into the ideological corner where the US can do no wrong, Paul's statement must be viewed as "treason," as portrayed by Giuliani's mock outrage.

Heavy-handed US actions in the middle east, including blind one-sided support for Israel, is a policy guaranteed to induce hostility in the Muslim world. They don't hate us for our freedom, as has been forwarded ad nauseum by the Republicans, they hate us for our policies.

He may be a nut on other issues, but Paul is apparently the only Republican presidential candidate capable of connecting those dots.

More workers equals lower wages. That's why both parties are so conflicted on immigration -- for opposite reasons.

But only the "stiff-arm saluting" elements of the Republican base seem to be enthusiastic about rounding-up millions of families, putting them on cattle cars and shipping them South.

Ignore those daily explosions and the ever-increasing American body count. Joe Klein has another scoop from another anonymous source: "We're turning the corner! Peace is at hand! Just six more months!" Klein apparently refuses to remember hearing all this before.

It's gotten waaaaay past the point where stupidity or laziness can explain our MSM's credulity. They've got to be on the payroll.

Orwell could never imagine a dystopia as corrupt as our flag-waving, god-proclaiming pornocracy.

It's as if the Dems as a political party don't give any thought as to what their course of action will be until they enter the Capitol for the day's business.

Where's the leadership and party discipline? Where is the carefully crafted rhetoric? Are the Democrats a political party in anything but name only?

This isn't about edging out short-term advantages and handicapping political horse races. People are dying.

Our corporate press corps wakes up in a new world every day, remembering nothing from the day before -- much less the previous six years.

There is no truth in Pravda, and no news in Izvestia.

It's as if the Dems as a political party don't give any thought as to what their course of action will be until they enter the Capitol for the day's business.

Based on their "strategy," the Dems are apparently still blissfully unaware that they are engaged in a political total war with radical forces intent on permanently changing the nature of what used to be described as the American Way.

Instead, they are absorbed in edging out short-term advantages, focus groups and poll results without a glimmer of understanding of the Big Picture, which is: An existential threat to liberal American democracy is succeeding simply because there is no effective opposition.

Where's the leadership and party discipline? Where is the carefully crafted rhetoric? Are the Democrats a political party in anything but name only?

Why isn't the argument framed as defunding the mission instead of defunding the troops?

We won the "war." Mission accomplished. Let the inevitable Iranian-backed Shia puppet government of Iraq (the only democratic outcome ever possible as a result of decapitating the Baathist regime) sort out the security problems in post-occupation Iraq.

Short of dangling cash reparation incentives to limit the post-occupation ethnic cleansing and other acts of revenge, there's not a helluva lot we can do in the long run.

I'm sure the Iranians will enjoy the fancy facilities once we get tired of the daily American body count and withdraw from this miserable, ill-conceived fiasco.

Why the hell can't the Dems counter the Republicans' false "defunding the troops" propaganda with the perfectly accurate and politically effective "defund the occupation"?

When prominent Dems start mindlessly parroting GOP talking points on an issue as important as Iraq, one has to wonder if the the Democrats are really a political party in anything but name only.