"And I think taunting the rtf 100s of this world to address that issue serves a purpose."

.....and you're correct.

I just read where Arnold suggested that the California GOP start reaching out for Independents and Moderate Democrats (in the manner of Willie Sutton) and for his troubles, is being attacked by the far right for not maintaining a "moral basis".

I sometimes think there's not a hell of a lot of difference in this regard between the far right and the far left, since both will gladly, it seems, allow the gold ring to escape their grasp while they jealously guard their territory.

A pox on both their houses.

"What we have learned over the years with Islamofacists is that they seek to enforce their will by means of suicide attacks on large groups of civilians. Not by means of any kind of 'speech.' Speech, it seems, does not provide the kind of body counts that Islamofascists desire."

Would you like to compare the body counts of so-called Islamofacists with the body counts of Bush and his Christofacist Soldiers?

What's the difference between enforcing one's will through the use of "shock and awe" and enforcing it by detonating a bomb strapped to one's body?

What's the difference between bombing someone to smitherines with a B-52 and bombing someone to smitherines with some C-4 strapped to your body?

as long as Holy Joe Leiberman holds leadership positions on Senate committees.

None of it.

"My name is Joe Holland. Don't forget it."

-- tiberius

Pounding your dick on the table isn't really that impressive, "Joe Holland."

Are you into foot tapping also?

"BTW, if we hadn't cut the military back so far in the 1990s, we would be having these problems. I blame BOTH parties for that too!"

--Anonymous

Our military was quite capable of performing its mission after the downsizing of the 90's.

What it wasn't capable of overcoming, is the willful incompetence of the civilian leadership provided by George W. Bush and Co.

The problem isn't the size of our military. The problem is that our military was given a task it wasn't designed for, wasn't prepared for, and shouldn't have been ordered to perform.

Sorry but you are incorrect. The military IS designed for war...that IS our primary mission. What we are NOT designed for is meals on wheels, maintaining a police state or anything else. War is our job.

War is not your job. Your job is to DEFEND this country and the two are not the same. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with defending this country. If you have a bitch, take it to those who screwed the pooch by giving you Iraq but you won't find him here.

As for the military being fully capable in the 1990s, you are again incorrect. There were those of us, like me, who SCREAMED that we would be in trouble if we had to fight a two-front war...and that we would NEVER be able to fight a three-front war...in the condition we were bein left in. NO ONE in authority listened to us. NOW we have soldiers having to work FAR harder and longer than they should have to because we are understrength. And since a wartime situation is NOT the best time to recruit, our numbers are not where they should be.

If you're trying to impress me with your SCREAMING and reference to being in the military, save your breath. I'm all over being impressed with the military.

Your numbers aren't where they should be because this rancid administration has taken our military where it was not designed to go, not because there wasn't enough money spent on it in the 90's. The problem, it seems to me, is that too much of that money was spend on whiz-bang crap designed to impress Geraldo Rivera (WTF do we need the F-22 for?), and not enough was spent on trying to determine what our military was going to be trained and equipped to do.

When I first joined up in the 1980s, there were about 1.5 million people in the Army uniform and almost 3/4 of a million of those were combat arms...now we have about 1/3 that number...yet you say we could continue doing the same mission with less people to do it. And all of this reduction was for MONEY!

We had more than ample military funding to do what our military is supposed to be doing - defending this country. Afghanistan, for example, was not shortchanged for either troops or supplies until Bush decided he wanted to play John Wayne (or Julius Ceasar, I don't know which) in Iraq.

I hope the civilians who said it was ok to depower the military during the 1990s think the money was worth all this unnecessary loss of life to get a job done we could have done then with less problems!

Depower? You've got to be shitting me. Our military was, by far, the strongest most capable force in the world before we invaded Iraq and there were still ample military resources to defend this country even after we deployed in Afghanistan.

--Anonymous

Get a name.

I don't believe there is too awfully much which I agree with pertaining to what Corporal Anon has written.

Maybe you've misread me or maybe I need to write better.

Yes, Dear.

Two words.

Fuck

You.

Sincerely,

Jebbie

"To wit: do you honestly think that if a Democrat is elected President he/she will immediately give up said powers that have been collected by this administration?"

That would be an excellent question to ask any candidate for President.

strip Joe Leiberman of his committee assignments and seniority?

If he wants to caucus with the Republicans, let him.