On a hot and sweaty day in July in 1983, I leaned over and put my head onto the black marble of the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial, and looked at the Washington Monument's reflection in the wall. Back over my right shoulder was the brooding figure of Lincoln, sitting on his chair. The bronze of the Three Servicemen had yet to be erected. At my feet were flowers and flags; notes and mementos had been shoved into the wall. I was 20 years old. Although a serviceman during Vietnam, my father had spent the war dodging Soviet destroyers in the North Atlantic, not running from V.C. in the jungle.

I remember being overpowered by emotion, even though I knew no one who had died in that long, useless war. But more, I remember how glad I was that it was over, long over, and though Reagan was in the White House, and it seemed nuclear holocaust was a knife-edge away, at least young men and women weren't dying in a pointless war half a world away based on lies, deceit, and idiotic theories.

Somehow, I have a hard time imaging Bush, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld, have ever waled down that path to the bottom, where the 10 foot high walls of the dead loom over you, an overwhelming reminder. And now every day, while Bush and Congress fight their absurd political battles, more names are graven on the future Iraq War Memorial wall, more lives are uselessly lost, and some young man or women will walk into that memorial on some hot, future summer's day and wonder, "Why?" And frankly, I won't have an answer.

At the risk of being pedantic, the article has a few mistakes:

o) The Creation Museum mentions the "7 C's of History," not 6. You left out "Cross," which is, let's face it, pretty important to Christians.

o) The Seventh Commandment is not "Thou Shalt Not Lie." In the Jewish and Protestant traditions, the Seventh Commandment is "Thou shalt not commit adultery." In the Catholic tradition, it's "Thou shalt not steal."

o) The Ninth Commandment (Eighth for Catholics) is "Thou shalt not bear false witness," which is different (and more specific) than not telling lies.

Not that I'm defending the museum, mind; just thinking about it makes my head spin. But if you're going to be talking about it, better get your source material right.

Who do they think they are kidding? Petraeus has already lowered expectations for the "surge," and Bush himself has said that the violence this summer will be worse because of the surge. Does anyone seriously think that, given this, the Administration is going to come back in September and actually admit that the "surge" is not working? Don't be absurd. There are only two possibilities here:

1) There's more violence over the summer, in which case the Bush Administration will say, "We told you that would happen. You see? The surge must be working!"

2) There's less violence over the summer, in which case the Bush Administration will say, "Look, there's been less violence! It's due to the surge! It's obviously working!"

Classic "heads I win, tails you lose" gamesmanship. Anyone who expects anything different is deluding themselves.

It should be obvious now to everyone that this Administration, aided and abetted by folks like McConnell and their remaining allies in Congress, are simply going to run out the clock and hand this unGodly mess to the next President, who they will then blame when the next President does the hard and honorable thing and gets us out of there. And the sooner everyone comes to grips with this and stops talking about "September being the real drop-dead date" and other inanities, the better.

Politicians should really stick to politics and leave math alone. First it was Romney with "null set," when it's clear he doesn't have the faintest idea what "null set" really means. Now it's this clown.

Does he realize that the most reasonable interpretation of his comment is that he means he's not standing behind the President? Or that he's standing in front of the President? Or perhaps that he's standing behind the President, but facing the other way?

150%. What a boob.

It's not Journey that arouses my ire, per se, so much as the highly-irritating Steve Perry. In much the same way that REO Speedwagon is not particularly irritating until Kevin Cronin opens his mouth, or Styx is less egregious without Tommy Shaw's antics.

Some people grate; Perry is one such person. When his vocals are ladled on top of the 80s-era synths, the overly-glossy production, and everything else, it's simply too much. In much the same way that Bush's voice causes me to reach for the volume knob during news stories, Perry's voice causes me to fumble for the preset buttons.

45% negative approval rating. Loses in head-to-head matchups against every single first-tier Republican primary opponent. Profound "Clinton Fatigue" factor. Robotic stump performance (although she's gotten better, I admit). Yet another candidate from the Northeast. And now this stuff that Conason brings up. Good heavens, how many more reasons are there for a lack of Democratic support for the Clinton campaign? Why on Earth does anyone think this woman can get elected?

Look: I think Ms. Clinton would make a fine President, I really do. Certainly better than the Current Occupant. But why, when they have so much going for them this time around, should the Democrats nominate someone who has an uphill battle no matter who she runs against? It's madness. I just don't understand.

But you know, it's not nearly as good as Journey.

[raucous laughter]

Sorry; I just couldn't resist.