Barndog implies that Presidents Carter and Clinton violated FISA. My understanding, however, is that Carter's action was taken before FISA went into effect, and Clinton's action was taken before FISA was amended to apply to physical searches. Moreover, those actions targeted suspected criminals -- as opposed to Bush-Cheney's ongoing surveillance of all U.S. citizens without regard to anyone actually being suspected of anything (except perhaps of voting Democratic).

If we've learned one thing about right-wingers in recent years, it is that they have zero respect for the truth. Theirs is a faith-based world in which no amount of factual evidence can dissuade people such as Barndog from the essential rightness of Bush-Cheney ideology. As the carnage continues, however, a few lonely mainstream media voices such as Keith Olbermann's -- for whom we should be grateful -- are finally questioning the disinformation that has been spewed in recent years without answer or objection.

Barndog's latest assertions (which I would take with a large grain of salt) still would not amount to any connection between Iraq and 9/11. (By the way, how many WMD were there, Barndog, in 2003? -- rather than in 1988, under Reagan and Bush Sr.) His obligatory attempt to blame Bill Clinton fails to explain why the republicans, instead of standing behind THAT president in a time of war, were focused only on impeaching him over trivia that had nothing to do with national security. Nor does it explain why, if Clinton was so obviously blind, the Bush-Cheney "adults" failed to get things right starting in January 2001, eight months before 9/11. Clinton did indeed take action to try to kill bin-Laden; whereas now Osama truly bin-forgotten. It is shameful that catching the criminal most responsible for 9/11 is now considered "irrelevant" by the so-called republicans.

Most absurdly, Barndog seems to be saying that the reason bin-Laden is still at large and al-Qaeda continues to threaten the West FIVE YEARS after 9/11 is that the job of catching terrorists is actually the responsibility of United and American Airlines. Is this really what conservatives mean by "accountability"? They ought to be ashamed.

I did Google "Ramzi Yousef", and confirmed (as I suspected) that he was tried, convicted, and, in 1998, sentenced (to forever and beyond) for his involvement in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. I think the span of time between the crime and the punishment was even less for the Oklahoma City bombers. That was under the Clinton administration, despite the distractions of the Whitewater nonsense and the republican impeachment circus. Oh, and let's not forget that at roughly the same time a U.S.-led NATO force stopped genocide in the Balkans, at the cost of virtually zero American casualties.

Now please respond to my questions regarding, a) what, if anything, the republicans did about terrorism in the 90's, while they were otherwise busy impeaching a popular, successful, and duly-elected president over a blow job; b) what, if anything, the Bush-Cheney "adults" did about terrorism starting in January 2001; and, c) why five years after 9/11, catching the alleged mastermind and dismantling his terrorist organization is asserted by the so-called republicans to be irrelevant. Along the way, you might also tell us how many WMD's were in Iraq in 2003, and what happened to Saddam's "reconstituted nuclear weapon" alleged by Dick "Cakewalk" Cheney (Meet the Press, 03/16/2003).

If you can't answer any of those questions, then at least answer this: how can you -- especially as a Vietnam-era military veteran (as you've claimed) -- support the ongoing carnage taking place in Iraq -- in a war that wasn't supposed to happen, following an invasion over WMD's and a connection to 9/11 that (as Bush Jr. confessed earlier this week) didn't exist, for the purpose of carrying a mission that, insofar as it consists of the world's Christian superpower(s) imposing a legitimate government on the Muslims, is hopeless at best? I would think that someone like you should be in the forefront of opposing the misuse of the U.S. military.

The purpose of the ratings system, as I understand it, is to help parents make informed decisions concerning what their children see. If, as earlier respondents stated, the movie 'Whale Rider' was rated PG-13, then we must assume that many children under the age of 13 of 14 were prevented from seeing that wonderful and inspirational film. If that is not the case -- as you seem to claim -- then the current system should be abandoned at once, because clearly no parents are using it to make decisions for their children. Meanwhile, the American moviegoing public is being treated like children due to the current system, as when adults here were not permitted to see Kubrick's version of 'Eyes Wide Shut' as shown in the U.K. and Europe. Though you have seemed stangely keen on defending the current system from the beginning of this discussion, you didn't respond to that point.

For what it's worth, I agree with your latest post, especially your criticism of the current system; there is nothing I can add. Thank you for your respectful exchange concerning (an article discussing a new movie regarding) an issue of great interest to us all. Peace Out.