The snake may not be as near death as it might appear.

Recall that the Anthrax mailer is still on the loose.

""You have such beautiful grandchildren, it would be a shame if anything were to happen to them.""

BTW, whatever happened to that Congressional investigation of a direct threat toward two of its senior members?

The meme is now let loose, Moveon's ad was brilliant.

In another Friedman or two, no one will remember the Moveon ad but they will remember "General Betrayus".

Things will not be any better in Iraq or possibly even worse, and the "General Betrayus" meme will be front and foremost in the minds of the people.

Not all strategies have to be short term, long term strategy is necessary also and that is the card that Moveon was playing.

Sometimes less than mollifying language is called for. Calling a spade a spade is exactly what is *not* happening and exactly what needs to happen.

Language defines how we think since we mostly think in words.

As Mark Twain once remarked "The difference between the right word and the almost right word is the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.

The fact that the right wing got their undies in such a bunch over the Betrayus ad shows that it was not only accurate but deadly.

Not to mention that it is his own troops who labeled Petraeus as Betrayus.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007_01_07_balkin_archive.html

Incidentally, I offer the following sidenote about General Petraeus, by almost all accounts an enormously accomplished man: A student of mine at the UT Law School, who had had combat experience in both Afghanistan and Iraq, referred to him as "General Betrayus" because of what was thought to be his inordinate interest in good publicity (and presumed self-promotion) rather than concern for his troops. I have no idea whether this is fair, but I do know that this is what my sober and thoughtful student told me.

How about Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul?

Between them they seem to have both the liberals and the conservatives excited.

They both are espousing views that strike a chord within much of the populace.

Neither is particularly indebted to the current corporatarchy.

Everyone with a functioning brain knows that cannabis is far less harmful than alcohol.

And yet the war on cannabis has almost unanimous support on both sides of the aisle.

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul being the two lonely exceptions.

When the politicians of both parties base policy regarding an issue which has lead "the land of the free" to be the largest incarcerator of human beings on the planet on sheerest fantasy why should we expect rationality from any of them?

From time to time I find it amusing to advocate for the renewed Prohibition of alcohol on various boards.. The reaction I get is overwhelming, I honestly can't recall ever having anyone at all support me in such advocacy.

People, including politicians, know that prohibition is an extremely bad idea, and yet it continues.

Why should we expect any difference when it comes to other, equally ridiculous, policies?

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a Kucinich/Paul ticket..

But of course, neither of them are "serious" candidates.

And I'll add that this sort of crap is just what Kucinich does not need from his "friends".

But then Salon doesn't seem to want a real change in American society, the sort of change that only a Kucinich or a Paul can bring.

That Jesus the Christ never once mentioned homosexuality or homosexuals.

He did, however, condemn divorce and hypocrisy.

Both of which seem to be a mainstay of evangelicals..

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

The more fundamentalist the church, the higher the divorce rate amongst its members.

Atheists and agnostics have the lowest divorce rate of all.

So, in light of these facts, who is keeping to the words of the Christ better?

The fundamentalists?

Or the atheists?

That Senators and Congresscritters were deluged with mail from constituents who were dead set against the invasion.

They voted for it anyway.

I'll be surprised if it turns out all that differently this time.

Two points:

1) Who would be in a better position to have the dirt on various members of Congress that those who handle their communications?

2) The Anthrax mailer has yet to be found and Congress seems not to care one whit about a direct and deadly threat against two of its senior members.

And to speak ill of the right wing in the US is to be "anti American".

Here is the comment to which you were originally responding with a claim that "the left" hates "jews".

What would Mr. Lippman make of the American press and Israel? Not at the beginning, before the demons took over--but now--when the goods are on the table, the oppression horrific and irrefutable, and the complicity of the media in this country a mockery of the First Amendment that has gone on for far too long.

It is the Israeli left which is supporting and engaging in horrific and irrefutable oppression?

Hardly, as we all know, it is the right in Israel which favors and implements such policies.

So the comment to which you were responding was a criticism of the Israeli right wing, not Jews in general.

Hence my comment that to criticize the Israeli right is to be anti semitic.