I've been following this issue very closely and was very upset when I read that the U.S. [democrate held] Senate voted for a version of the new FISA bill that would give the telecoms immunity. The only reason it didn't reach the President's desk was that House Democrats stuck to their guns and refused to give this insane retroactive immunity.

When the Dems won control in 2006, they said they would stand up to Bush and exercise their oversight responsibility and end the war in Iraq. WELL, from where I sit -- they haven't done anything substantial.

I urge everyone to contact their Congressman/woman and ask them NOT TO GIVE TELECOM COMPANIES RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY.

The Telecoms and the Bush Administration have both stated for the record that no laws were broken, so WHY THIS URGENT NEED FOR IMMUNITY?!

The lies the Author failed to mention are as follows:

1. We had to invade Iraq because they had WMDs and/or were seriously pursuing such technology.

REALITY: there were no WMDs in Iraq.

2. We had to invade Iraq because after 9/11 the world was not safe and it might happen again.

REALITY: Saddam and Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11

3. We had to invade Iraq because there were ties to Saddam/Iraq and al-Qaeda

REALITY: the Pentagon even says there were no al-Qaeda in Iraq until AFTER we invaded

4. The War would pay for itself, or at least be subsidized by Iraqi oil revenue

REALITY: oil prices at all-time high, Iraqi budget surplus, total U.S. cost of Iraq War estimated anywhere from $500 billion to $3 trillion

5. The "surge" is only temporary and will provide the fledgling Iraqi government with time to settle its domestic political & economic problems

REALITY: despite military gains from our incredible fighting forces [I am a proud veteran] (what else would you expect by adding 30,000 highly-trained and motivated troops) the Iraqis HAVE NOT MADE SUFFICIENT PROGRESS says Gen. Petraeus

I could go on and on, but you get the point.

I am continually amazed at the collective pyscho-analysis being conducted by feminists all over the country to try and figure out why so many men will not vote for Hillary. It's quite amusing to read these blogs & articles about how so many men are misogynists and how women are struggling with choosing between a man and a woman candidate.

It is indeed uncharted territory as we've never had a serious potential candidate for President that was not a man (or white man for that matter).

I just wanted to share why I despise Hillary -- and you can call me a woman-hater all you want, but my distaste for her does not rest on her gender.

When Hillary started running for President she seemed as though she was ENTITLED to the nomination -- before it really began! She was campaigning in a very assured style -- even arrogant -- touting her 35 years experience. I was shocked and dismayed that a former First Lady, who has never held elected office (until she bought a Senate seat in NY) would act as though she's been groomed for 35 years to be our President. Just being First Lady does not qualify you to be President. She has inflated her credentials, lied repeatedly, had her husband defend her, called in favors and strong-armed superdelegates -- all the while maintaining this arrogant/never apologize stand that is extremely unflattering... at least to me. It has nothing to do with her gender, but everything to do with her. Can women understand that? Can women understand that not all of us love Bill Clinton. Many are ashamed of what he put our country through, and many of us do not want him in the White House again -- as we would probably have him interfering with his wife's duties. It is simply too much power for 1 family to have... (I had the same thoughts when Bush ran).

People often vote with their gut -- who do they trust? Who do they like? Who can they imagine in the White House?

In closing, I would invite women to continue searching and struggling to find answers to these questions, but lighten up on labeling all Obama supporters as something other than inspired, or by stigmatizing men who dislike Hillary. In normal times, Dems & Liberals would be jumping up and down at the dignified way Obama has run his campaign. He has brought hundreds of thousands of new voters to the polls, and no one in the Hillary camp seems to care... I find that distressing -- particularly if they want to take back the White House -- regardless of which candidate emerges from the Primary.

Our Founding Fathers were very serious about many facets of our Government: one of the basic tenets is civilian control over the military... that is why we have a Secretary of Defense. The Secretary, along with the President (as Commander in Chief) and other advisors are supposed formulate military policy. Of course, the top civilian leadership takes substantial input from the Joint Chiefs of the various branches.

Because Bush is backed into a corner in Iraq and has no gameplan or goals, he defers completely to Petraeus. This provides "cover" for the President, but it is troubling in so many ways. Petraeus, as he is ready to admit, should not be formulating policy or creating our overall strategy. Our entire military operation in Iraq (and even Afghanistan) seems to rest on Petreaus' shoulders. This is what happens in countries where the military runs the show, and it should not be happening in America.

The fact is we have such a weak and incompetent Commander in Chief, that he is unwilling to take charge of the situation.

Now, McCain is moving in the same direction. This coming from a man who loudly trumpets his foreign policy experience. McCain seems to suggest that Petraeus will continue to call the shots -- although he is not a staff officer and is not at the pay grade where he should b developing strategic policy.