Americans believe that the defunding of the occupation equals harm to the troops because those Americans are stupid (or at the very least ignorant in the extreme).

On the one hand, there is this argument that americans have been duped into supporting the war through some sort of conceptual gymnastics involving the phrase "support the troops".

On the other hand, the polls supposedly show that public support for the war is eroding, and that Bush's popularity is very low. This in spite of the fact that Bush is "the supporter" as far as the troops are concerned.

What is clear is that, right now, our government AS A WHOLE supports the war in Iraq, regardless of what the american people may or may not be thinking, and regardless of how stupid they may or may not be. That is the bigger problem.

...Glenn Greenwald discovers the Low Right.

It is easy sometimes to lose sight of how extreme a period this is in America's history, how profoundly our national character has been degraded and how fundamentally our country's core has changed over the last six years.

Really, if you're going to chronicle the decline in national character, maybe you should start with Truman and Hiroshima. Does that one count? What about the 500,000 children killed by the Iraq sanctions from 1990-2003 (UNICEF). Does Clinton bear any responsibility for that?

Probably not. Anyway, these are just "outliers", as someone else has helpfully explained.

Can anyone even define our country’s “core”? Is it beautiful, like a rainbow? Or is it just protons and neutrons?

My point is that major changes for the worse in this country occured prior to the last six years.

Yes, there was no constitutional problem with nuking the Japanese.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, or blog about it, or something.

Shooter, you didn't and don't have a point to make.

Shooter242's point is that the presidential daily briefing was not actionable, and that calling him a troll proves this point (since you're not presenting a counterargument).

However, someone else has pointed out that the report was actionable in the sense that it could have been taken seriously by Bush, rather than discounted out of hand. Shooter242 seems to be ignoring this argument, unless I missed something.

John, what makes you think Bush discounted all this out of hand?

The famous "you've covered your ass" comment.

The 911 report indicates that Bush thought he was getting info he already knew about (p 278). And since CIA was on high alert anyway (p 277), one could legitimately wonder if the president really needed to take additional steps.

I guess the point here is that, post-911, authorizing torture (either explicitly or covertly) is NOT one of the actions Bush should have taken.

By posting under your registered name we can evaluate your fury against the context of a posting history.

oh.

People here are so great at parsing logic, parse this:

A = empower the fetus, ignore the poor

B = ignore the fetus, empower the poor

Apparently, you only get to pick one.

You see, poor people had a chance to be godly, aka rich and conservative, and they blew it.

Malcalypse

Anyone with a goodhead for math can see that poverty kills more babies (granted, worldwide, not just in America, but I am assuming the good Christian views non-American life as equally sacred as American life) in an hour (in 10 minutes? 5?) than legal abortions.

Juliebird

As ALL and the rest of these Anti-Choice organizations have become more emboldened under this administration, they have started to show their true colors. And its all about re-enforcing the patriarchy by punishing women who try to take control of their own bodies and reproductive choices.

Snowbeltliberal

I agree, ALL is a bunch of raving jackasses. And their views DO need to be exposed. And it is cruel and idiotic to place the needs of the unborn above the needs of the living and impoverished.

Anonymous

It is now abundantly clear that the so-called American Life League does not give a damn about actual babies -- whether unborn, pre-born, newborn, or infants with some mileage on them.

Nancy Ott

I don't see any lies, here, nor any gross distortions in Broadsheet or Feministe on this particular release.

Pyrian

Can somebody tell me why the catholic church would have a problem with early abortion now that they no longer have the concept of limbo?

TrueBlue

My pop's idea of good parenting was letting me try his beer. So this guy is practically superdad.

On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it", though she later rued the comment as "stupid."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

but move to Missouri first. Don't forget to mention all your relatives in the miltary.

Because - UNLIKE THEM - I'm not arguing that they should be judged based upon their commenters. I'm arguing, instead, that if their standard is used, they are just as guilty as those they are accusing.

The headline for the article might be a source of confusion for the less intellectually gifted out here.

Also:

(1) Standard X is dishonest and corrupt.

(2) Those who advocate and apply Standard X to others ought to have that standard applied to them.

That is not all that complicated.

Actually, it is a little bit complicated. If you're against the death penalty, you probably wouldn't suggest applying the death penalty only to death penalty supporters. Because you're against the death penalty.

But you might make the case made here, just to prove hypocracy.