On his return from Iraq, Miller was sent directly to the Pentagon to personally brief then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Steven Cambone.

War criminals.

The religious extremists' campaign against abortion has nothing to do with being "pro-life." After all, the vast majority have no problem with the death penalty, unprovoked wars of aggression, torture, or any interest in the welfare of children once they're born.

The zealots' real motivation is that they're anti-sex: Anti-contraception, anti-sex education, anti-homosexuality, anti-masturbation -- any form of non-procreative sex.

They are so revulsed by sex that if a means were found to reproduce without the act, many would campaign against heterosexual, marital intercourse.

They're not "pro-life," just afflicted with a severe form of sexual deviancy.

Like any other commodity, humans are subject to the economic laws of supply and demand.

The more people there are, the less each is worth in our society.

Under that harsh reality, what does it mean to be "pro-life," i.e., anti-abortion and anti-contraception?

Cheney told Tenet what to say, then Tenet told the congressional briefers what to say.

This fact does not impugn the work of rank-and-file CIA analysts and officers whom, at the time, were known to be in virtual mutiny against the politicization of raw intelligence by the Bush regime.

For the life of me, I don't understand why the Democrats are so cluelessly incompetent at responding to lame Republican talking points such as "How dare that horrible Nancy Pelosi say that all the fine and honorable CIA personnel (who are protecting us) are liars."

One can blather high-minded platitudes about the "democratic process" ad nauseum. But as was proved by the civil rights movement, it was the fear of property damage (and worse) by citizens engaged in "street action" that ultimately succeeded in effecting radical change. Our politicians have proved themselves too stupid, timid or corrupt to be influenced by any other course of action.

Americans should take this lesson to heart from our European cousins, whose interests are actually served by their governments.

Many argue that subprime mortgages are the root of our economic collapse, but the real cause is much more fundamental.

While the cost-of-living has steadily risen (health care, education, food, energy, etc.), wages have remained flat for a generation -- except for a brief rise under the Clinton administration.

The gap between income and the cost-of-living was bridged by easy credit -- not due to consumers' lust for luxury, but out of necessity.

The reality is that manufacturing is the only real engine of wealth creation, and America is no longer a manufacturing nation. Shuffling paper and flipping burgers cannot create enough wealth to ensure the prosperity of 300 million Americans.

Until this fundamental rot in the American economy is addressed with a National Manufacturing Policy, all of the economic measures taken will only be treating the symptoms -- not the cause of the problem.

From Glenn's May 7 essay:

In his view, it's better to write a story using completely unreliable and discredited methods than it is to simply refrain from writing the story at all (well, the alternative to writing an unreliable piece was to write nothing, he argues, as though that's exonerating).

I think that quote was particularly revealing. Apparently, getting something into print with his byline was more important than any journalistic consideration.

Reagan's economic policy of tax cuts for the wealthy basically meant:

a) Charging up the national credit card and calling it "prosperity."

b) Blaming that mean ol' Congress for not cutting spending (without specifying exactly which items were to be cut).

c) Proclaiming to this day that, despite the mounting debt that resulted from Reagan's tax cuts, that reducing taxes magically raised revenues. In GOP fantasyland, ideology trumps simple math.

In the Republican fairy-tale version about Reagan "winning the Cold War," Mikhail Gorbachev barely rates a footnote.

The reason Republicans hold so dearly to the fantasy version of history is because, post-Eisenhower, pleasant tales of make-believe is all they've got.

Newt.org?

Considering Gingrich's reputation for honesty and integrity, I'm sure his website is bound to be an unimpeachable source of objective reportage.

Nobody since the 1940s had any illusions about the Soviet Union. Having lived through through the 60's-80's, I can tell you I can't recall anybody cheerleading for the Russians.

I don't need Newt Gingrich to rewrite history for me. Newt probably considers anyone who tried to tamp-down the possibility of nuclear war as a refutation of Reagan's characterization of the USSR as an "evil empire."

For the millions of the innocents killed throughout SE Asia and Latin America, there was plenty of "evil" to go around.

Answer this honestly (if it doesn't make your head explode):

Who actually did more to liberate the former Iron Curtain countries:

a) Ronald Reagan

b) Mikhail Gorbachev

The anti-abortion movement is simply trying to achieve through violence what they can't achieve politically -- and impose by force the will of a minority on the majority.

And it's working. Now there are only two late-term abortion providers nation-wide.

Late term abortions aren't done on a whim or to avoid inconvenience, as the O'Reilly's insist. It's usually done in cases of gross fetal abnormality -- detected late in the pregnancy.

And remember, for these zealots, there's no difference between a late-term fetus and a fertilized egg. Abortion today -- birth control tomorrow.

I can imagine the political impact rabid anti-Sotomayor character assassins will have on women and Hispanics as voting blocs. Congressional Republicans understand this -- right-wing fringe kooks who now control the Republican Party do not.

If forced to go after Sotomayor, the GOP will join the Whigs as a historical footnote.

Filibuster threat? I hope to God Reid brings out the cots.

I love the "Shut the hell up!" argument.

I suppose you've got nothing else...