Stolen presidential elections, and the impeachment of our last duly-elected president; the worst terror attacks in U.S. history because a fictitious "president" was too busy clearing brush while his handlers plotted for the chance to sell a stupid and doomed war based on threats that did not exist; meanwhile, the real perpetrators of 9/11 remain free to threaten the West five years after the fact; the repeal of the U.S. constitution in favor of a so-called "unitary executive"; corporate media cheerleaders too busy covering runaway brides and celebrity court cases to notice any of the above; and a viciously partisan right-wing media that labels as "traitors" and "terrorist sympathizers" anyone who has noticed and has tried to speak out. I swear, it's enough to make a thoughtful person want to scream.

Thank you, Salon, for giving me a safe place to scream. Whatever happens next, thanks.

Sen. Feingold's critics, who demand a "plan" for dealing with the "void" they insist would result from a "timetable", are forgetting that, despite the 2006 election, the neo-cons who created this disaster are stll in charge. To this day, the Bush-Cheney apologists still insist the carnage in Iraq is caused by "al-Qaeda jihadists and Islamofascist terrorists" who kill Americans "because they hate our way of life." They haven't listened; they're not listening.

This war isn't merely going badly due to "mistakes" that were made. It was doomed from the start by Bush-Cheney's total disconnect from reality. Like a mob of angry, belligerent drunks, the Radical Right cannot be reasoned with. They hate the truth and they hate us; and don't even ask them how they really feel about Muslims. The only solution is to pull the plug as quickly as possible before they are able to conjure up a fresh disaster in Iran.

Maybe someday the History Channel can explain what the U.S. military hoped to achieve by racing patrols through the ruined, still-smoking streets of Iraq's cities, and from kicking in doors in the middle of the night. Till then there is a great line in the documentary 'Hearts and Minds' -- it might have come from Daniel Ellsberg himself -- that it wasn't a question of the U.S. backing the wrong side in Vietnam; rather, the U.S. WAS the wrong side.

No one is talking about the officiating -- which was flawless, and a world apart from last year's travesty, when the Seahawks were victimized more than "Democrat" presidential candidates in general elections. The NFL obviously fixed the problem of bad officiating that plagued last year's game and indeed last year's playoffs; but how? (I'm curious.)

P.S. Ads involving chimpanzees in business suits never get old.

If Giuliana DiPandi of E News married Rudy Giuliani, she'd be Giuliana Giuliani.

How many Bush-Cheney judicial nominations have been successfully blocked? And how many of Bill Clinton's nominees were deprived up-or-down votes? Hypocrite.

Elephantman, I've been waiting for four years now for some bright fellow like you to explain what "victory" in Iraq means, and how much it will cost, meaning how many millions of people must be killed and how many trillion dollars of taxpayer funds are needed in the effort. Only then can I tell you if "winning" is a goal worth pursuing.

Joe, what did Junior or Cheney do to lead the nation or inspire the world after 9/11? As I recall, they fled to "undisclosed locations," where as we now know they plotted with their handlers how to use the attacks to start a war with Iraq? It's been five and a half years since 9/11, and Osama bin-Forgotten while al-Qaeda continues to threaten and attack the West. (You do know bin-Laden and Saddam are two different people, don't you, Joe?)

Corporate scandals? Invite Kenny Boy to the White House! A fantastic economy? For the corporate sellers of war materials, sure; but for the rest of us, not so much. Iraq? Aka the worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam? May I assume you mean the survivors, Joe? Because half a million Iraqis are no longer around to tell us how they feel about al-Maliki, or the total absence of WMD. Personally, I think "miserable failure" is much too kind.

Elephantman, you say the goal is "ultimate peace, security, and freedom for all Iraqis" -- by which you presumably mean the survivors; and you claim it might take "a few months" -- by which you must mean in addition to the four years it has already taken. Fair enough. And we've just learned the bill for this war now stands at roughly two-thirds of a trillion dollars, so that question has been answered, for now. Of course, you didn't say how many more Americans and Iraqis must be killed or maimed in order to achieve your "ultimate peace, security, and freedom for all Iraqis" but never mind any of that for the moment.

What I'd really like to know is if at the end of a few more months, "ultimate peace, security, and freedom for all Iraqis" has not been achieved, will you then ackowledge that Iraq has been the worst foreign policy disaster since Vietnam? And can the hunt for bin-Laden and the criminals responsible for 9/11 (and Bali, Madrid, etc.) then be resumed? Or is your fear and loathing of the "Democrat" party so deep that you will never, ever admit that the WMD were a hoax; that Bush-Cheney and the neo-cons deserve infamy; and that the atrocious costs of this utterly foreseeable disaster have not been worth the imperial fantasy?