but I agree with Joe, Giuiliani's pronouncements are certainly enough.

Yes, Giuliani does come across as the candidate most eager to set in stone our rapidly devolving authoritarian state, and it's incredibly discouraging if even 5 or 10 percent of republicans support him, let alone that he's actually the front-runner. But if you look around, there's no shortage of crazy-ass inflammatory speechifying spewing forth from the ignorant-sounding mouths of candidates who (you'd think) would know better.

Romney says he wants to double the population of Gitmo.

Edwards regrets his vote on Iraq, but says we'll be there for years to come.

McCain cracks jokes about wanting to bomb Iran.

Obama has gone on record essentially threatening the sovereignty of Pakistan, an unstable political powderkeg and the only Islamic country with nuclear warheads. Will Obama's rhetorical recklessness embolden Musharraf's enemies? Will they point to it as yet another proof that he's a weak stooge who does America's bidding and doesn't care about Pakistanis, and deserves to be overthrown?

Who cares! At least Obama showed he's tough!

Hillary to her credit is a little more deft, insofar as she hasn't had any truly quotable slip-up like the fellows. But she was happy to vote for that pesky resolution accepting possible unilateral aggression against Iran.

(Fool me once and I'll say I don't regret it based on what I knew at the time. Fool me twice, and if I'm really clever I'll figure out a way to forestall a second statement of non-regret until after I'm elected.)

first, our faux-populist culture insisted that a president you'd like to have a beer with was the ticket. Now it seems that talking smack about nuclear war is the way to go. Give me the cold patrician reticence of a Woodrow Wilson any day.

Like Mike Gravel, ALL these f***ers frighten me.