That are one heartbeat (Musharraf's) away from ending up in the hands of some really dangerous people.

I understand this. I just don't understand why the United States isn't considered the most dangerous country in the world - by your criteria, or any number of others we could choose.

We have more nukes than anyone. We are the only country to have used them. And we have an administration who has brought up the possibility of using them again.

Ours are already "in the hands of some really dangerous people."

Dodd may be in a position to fall on his sword, but Clinton and Obama may be very smart in not antagonizing the big telecom giants. Just as with the media giants (and there is overlap), their power to aid or interfere with a campaign is now too large to be ignored.

This has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with greed. One reason the media giants are so powerful is because the political elites have been wallowing in their money sty for far too long. The only way to stop this is to find candidates who will challenge it and educate the public as to why it is so critical to do so.

I agree with Little Brother. If Clinton and Obama want to impress me then they need to relocate their courage (if they ever truly had any to begin with) and stop trying to find the least painful way out of a commitment to the Constitution. It's time to find a David to slay Goliath.

This is why Stark had to apologize. If he didn't then this kind of language would be next on the floor of the House of Representatives, as part of the official record. Our Representatives reflect their constituents.

We're still waiting for Cheney's apology for telling Leahey to "go f**k" himself on the floor of the Senate. Very civil of him. Definitely wouldn't want to have the House lower itself to that level. BTW, who does Cheney reflect more on - you? His breast-heaving, hankie-twister-writing wife, or his cousin of the nth degree, Obama?

It's a good thing I included the phrase "as part of the official record" in my reply. Was Cheney speaking officially "on the record" like Stark? Nope. Meanwhile don't hold your breath for an apology.

I don't give a rat's ass if it's part of the "official record" or not. I'm holding my breath but not because I'm waiting for an apology. Covering your ass with the "official record" diaper doesn't change the fact that you have soiled yourself and everyone here can smell it. The fact that Cheney was left with no comeback short of using that kind of language on the floor of the Senate speaks volumes about him, his methods and his (lack of) character.

If Leahy wants to be rude, then it's not surprising he got a reaction in kind.

Yes, Leahey was being ever so rude calling out Halliburton's war profiteering. They should just stick to doing it in committee where, before and since the 109th Congress, it was/is called "oversight".

More rudeness. Please.

Why should anyone listen to the ravings of the reality challenged?

Agreed. Let's remove Rush, Billo, Hannity, Coulter et. al. from the publically owned airwaves now. That would do a lot toward restoring reality to the coverage of the M$M.

The most significant and encouraging aspect of all of this, by far, has been that all of this has happened solely because tens of thousands of people devoted to the rule of law and our basic Constitutional liberties have demanded it. That has single-handedly catalyzed Dodd's leadership, compelled the other candidates to speak out against amnesty, and has forced attention to be paid to these issues. That progress -- all achieved in barely a single week -- is significant and should not be overlooked.

Don't forget the most important ingredient without which the entire spell may not be cast -- the catalyst.

Glenn, Digby, FDL - ALL of the tireless truth-seeking bloggers out there on the intertubes - without you bringing your unique perspectives to us, and without the kettle of ideas that simmer as a result, none of this may have happened (or at least not so quickly).

Without your 'eye of newt' the whole thing's nothing more than hot steam.

(Apologies for the somewhat tortured Halloween analogy)

When you're trying to achieve something, you have to strike a balance between not spewing defeatism but also not generating false optimism. But either way, I think there will be successe to build on here - learning better how this can be done, the best way to build pressure, to compile and coordinate resources, etc.

-- GlennGreenwald

It's a learning process -- or maybe an un-learning process -- or, perhaps, both.

I am not nearly as good a historian as many here, so perhaps someone else can give examples if needed, of cycles in history wherein a given group hoards and accumulates a disproportionate share of the community wealth and power. This goes on for some time, then the hoi polloi decide that the situation is untenable (rise up with cries of "Bullshit!" and more) and institute (sometimes) drastic change.

I see signs in this of, perhaps, the beginning of the 'drastic change' part of a cycle. At least that is my hope.