"This is definitive proof that the United States is not anti-Islam, something that violent extremists like bin Laden often accuse us of being in their propaganda."

BUt we ARE anti-Muslim! This article is about all the ways we are. And if you want to say that Coulter and Fox News and certain troglodytes in Congress don't represent us, then god damn it just come out and say it. But don't try and deny the very truth you document!

This nation has ALWAYS been of two minds. "We the people" didn't include the black slaves that built this place. Wilson of the League of Nations also brought us the Palmer Raids against immigrants and labor organizers. We have ALWAYS been two faced about tolerance and opportunity. The sooner we face this reality, the sooner we will come to terms with it. Pretending that such bigotry is not US just destroys our ability to deal with it.

The shift has occurred because Bush has removed the velvet glove from the iron fist. He has used military force to overtly defend our empire, instead of using economic coersion as previous presidents did.

Just look into the World Bank, the "Washington Concensus" and their role in poverty creation and resource extraction. See Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" or the works of Walden Bello. Economic imperialism is too well documented to deny or even argue.

Bush HAS changed how we conduct ourselves, but the change has not been fundamental.

The ISG also calls for the domination of Iraqi oil fields by foreign (aka- US) oil companies on terms that are unheard of elsewhere in the world. Contracts good for 30 years (the standard is 5-10) giving 70% of the revenues to the foreigners.

With the ISG- Vice President Halliburton gets what he was after in the first place-

Whenever I hear some politician talk about the need to balance budgets I reach for my wallet cuz I'm about to be ripped off. Assuming for the sake of argument that Richardson is sincere in his call for line item vetoes and his confrontation with corporate welfare, does anyone think that Congress and the K Street Bandits would let him get away with it?

BUT ON PRINCIPLE, THE OBSESSION WITH BALANCED BUDGETS IS BULLJIVE. Do you know anyone who buys a car, or a house with cash? I don't. The fact is that there is such a thing as productive debt. It depends on what it is spent on. Going into debt doing things that make us more prosperous is justified. Some debt, invested properly in our human resources and the economic structures that create wealth, bring great returns. So the quesitons about debt are

**what it is spent on?

**What is the ratio of debt to income? This is the question that most reputable bank officers would ask you when you go in for a loan.

The real problem with our present debt is that it is run up doing things that shouldn't be done, and with the tax cuts of the last 30 years our expenditures are totally out of whack with our income.

That Richardson isn't talking sense like this proves his balanced budget moves are just another sop to the economic neoCONS.

Tax cuts MIGHT stimulate the economy as Richardson claims, if they are structured to do so. Tax cuts for the middle class and the poor stimulate the economy by putting money in the hands of people who SPEND it. Economists have spent 20 years looking for evidence of a stimulus effect of upper class tax cuts and they haven't found it.

Sounds to me like Richardson is just another DLC hack.

In reality Clinton's comments were more in line with Smith's philosophy than the free market absolutists are. He recognized the amorality of the markets and the need to have government intervention to assure the proper workings of the economy. Our shared responsibility in Clinton's terms. Of course, when Smith's work was excerpted for use in college courses, those chapters were conveniently left out!

All the reasons Mr. Clemons gives for why Bush won't attack Iran are based on one false premise: that Bush is a rational person who rationally assesses the consequences of his actions.

This premise totally misses who Mr. Bush is. He is an unrecovered addict whose actions over the last 7 years have proved over and over that he has no conception of, nor concern for, the consequences of his actions. He is a Christian fanatic who believes it is his calling to fight a crusade in the Middle East against the Muslim infidels, and if that means triggering Armageddon well he's just OK with that. The history of the last 8 years also shows that he has surrounded himself with sycophants who have no interest in telling him the unpleasant facts of life.

The religious fanatics that are truly a threat to this country run things in Washington, and the threat they represent will not end with the innaurguration of another president.

Could we please, please PLEASE with powdered sugar on top-STOP CALLING IT THE PATRIOT ACT?!

There is nothing patriotic about this constitution shredding, human rights abusing abortion of a law. I call it USAPA (USA Patriot Act)- an ugly name for an ugly piece of legislation. The name should reflect the nature of the thing named.