As with most of the statements by Bush on "controversial" topics, this boils down to a rather simple question: Is Bush lying, or is he simply incompetent? There really is no third option, and it's incredible that this man has been doing this for years, and yet is not held accountable.

Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post points out that Bush's rhetoric on Iran changed significantly between August 6 and 9, when he stopped talking about how we "know" Iran has nuclear weapons programs, to us "knowing" that Iran wanted to "get the knowledge" for nuclear weapons programs. (I suggest Google; I think Ahmadinejad uses AOL, having received 11 of their CDs in the mail.) This change in rhetoric allowed Bush to continue his anti-Iran fear-mongering with his mentions of "World War III," but allowed him to avoid stating things that were technically not false, a long-time Bush administration standby.

So it's up to Americans to decide: liar, or incompetent. And please remember that a lie of implication is still a lie; that's how we ended up in Iraq, after all.

What I always find "interesting" in these situations is that a reporter doesn't have the huevos to ask him, "Sir, as the President, could you please just ask them?" I mean, if the President can't get "the true facts," who the hell can?

Why the f--- is this so important in the primary of a major American political party? I can't believe this debate is happening. I can't believe the level of political discourse has sunk so far.

"No religious test" for high office? Hell, not only is there a religious test, they're arguing about religious doctrine.

Watching the Republican primary is like watching a slow-motion car crash, but the participants are actually aiming at each other. And once they've crashed their cars, they climb out and start arguing--not about insurance and who's at fault--but about religion. It's complete insanity. Torture is okay? You have to be, not only a Christian, but a particular type of Christian? You have to support the insanity of a pre-emptive war in Iraq?

Madness. It's madness.

Words cannot express the disgust I feel about purported "conservatives" who are happily embracing positions that are as far from true conservatism as it is possible to imagine. Keeping citizens alive is the most "basic civil right?"

I would rather die, frankly, than be subjected to such authoritarian impulses as these clowns espouse. And I can hardly be the only one. New Hampshire's state motto is "Live Free or Die!" Thomas Paine said "Give me liberty or give me death!" (He sure didn't say "Take my liberty so I can stay alive!") I wonder what Lt. John McCain would have thought of all this, had he know about it while suffering out his time in that Hanoi Hell?

But a better writer than I put it well in a piece of fiction:

I sat down and shut up. I felt that I now understood the new regime: absolute freedom . . . except that any official from dogcatcher to supreme potentate could give any orders whatever to any private citizen at any time.

So it was “freedom” as defined by Orwell and Kafka, “freedom” as granted by Stalin and Hitler, “freedom” to pace back and forth in your cage. I wondered if the coming interrogation would be assisted by mechanical or electrical devices or by drugs, and felt sick at my stomach.

Give me liberty or give me death, dammit! And that goes double for you, Messrs. Romney, Cheney, Bush, and Guiliani!

Stephanie Zacharek writes, regarding the dearth of an audience for the many films on the Iraq war:

One portion of the explanation might lie in the fact that most of the Iraq war-related movies were rated R, not PG or PG-13, which automatically trims their potential audience. Ultimately, the slender turnout for these movies may point to a larger and knottier problem: American moviegoers aren't necessarily turning away from the war as a subject. It could simply be that the audience for any kind of serious adult drama has shrunk, period -- after all, it's been shrinking for years.

Actually, aside from their (apparent) bad quality as films, I think the explanation is simpler: when we are hearing about Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and suicide bombers and torture and rendition every day, what is the draw to see a fictionalized account of it? It's horrific enough to contemplate that it is our country doing those things; does one really want to shell out $7.50 (or whatever) and have one's nose rubbed in it?

Honestly, I don't think so.

A lot of critics bemoan the fact that Hollywood often tacks happy endings on films, and that audiences demand the same. But these films not only don't have happy endings, given the current quagmire in Iraq, they don't really have endings at all. And won't, until Iraq has an "ending." (How many war movies were made during World War II that were about, say, the Bataan death march or the internment of the Japanese? Heck, how many are made now?)

So Stephanie may be right about some of the reasons, but I think the main reason is that they hit 'way too close to home.

They sowed the wind, now they're reaping the whirlwind, and it scares the living crap out of them.

The Evangelicals are rising up against their "betters" in the GOP, and the Wise Folks in Charge are clearly terrified. My sympathy level approaches zero.