I can's speak of Sen. Schumer since I don't really know him, but DiFi is(tragically) my senator. Sen. Feinstein's husband, a defense contractor, has benefited enormously from the various wars the regime has launched. DiFi has always been rather conservative, but having launched her political career from San Francisco, she had to operate as a Democrat. With the exception of being pro-choice, there's really no difference between her and the average republican. She's quite comfortable with the wars and with their consequences-human rights abuse, torture, corruption. She and her husband had moved a couple of years ago to a 20 million dollar mansion in the posh Pacific Height neighborhood in San Francisco, purchased no doubt with blood money made off the Iraq invasion. She is voting to approve Mukasey because she feels he's on the same side she is on. People should stop thinking of her as a Democrat and be surprised at her voting record.

Wrong again. The bottom line is that when “water treatment” was practiced against our side, it was called a war crime. That was the ruling against the Japanese after the Second World War by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and by the military courts that tried what were called in the Far East, the “B” and ”C” level war criminals.

When the leaders of Japan were found guilty of multiple and horrific war crimes, one of them was the “water treatment.” Those who actually did the “water treatment” – the officers who directed torture (B level) and those who carried it out (C level) were guilty of war crimes. Some were executed.

The Geneva Convention does not differentiate between "state" vs. other prisoners. Only the Busheviks claim there is a distinction. Moreover, none of the detainees has ever been convicted of anything. The US government doesn't even deny that 8 out of 10, and according to American lawyers and Amnesty International the ratio is closer to almost 10 out of 10 detainees are either totally innocent or petty criminals with no connection to jihadist terrorism. In fact, the US is committing war crimes against people who are mostly innocent, although it's considered a war crime even when the detainees aren't innocent.

waterboarding is a war crime no matter who the victims are, and the regime is guilty of crimes for which others have been executed after committing it against Americans.

Let me simplify it, because it is so deadly and terrifyingly simple. The Bush/Cheney/neocon cabal have turned the US government into a neo Nazi regime. Essential ingredients of such a regime are gulags, genocide and lack of basic civil liberties and human rights, such as due process. The legislative branch has become a cowed and terrified enabler. Understood in that context, we shouldn't be surprised daily by what this regime is doing.

Anderson Cooper is a member in good standings of the conformist, complaint, never challenge and always believe the regime corporate mainstream media. It's a given that when he goes to Iraq he is protected and shielded by the military. After all, "journalists" like him are one of the reasons the public is actually unaware that we now live under a fascist regime. GG on the other hand keeps challenging this regime on fundamental issues such as the criminality of the Iraq war, civil liberties, due process and its numerous and egregious violation of the US Constitution. If he goes to Iraq, what are the odds of him becoming the victim of an "unfortunate incident" that would never be properly investigated? My guess is that neither one of us would bet 5 dollars against it.

His foreign policy platform is laudable, correct and right on the money. However, in a US governed by Ron Paul, government regulations will disappear, which means that corporations would have unlimited power to control and run this country, even more than they do now. This would mean, for example, unfettered pollution of our air, oceans rivers and lakes, a sharp increase in the cutting of forests and the development of pristine federal land. The states would receive very little money from the federal government and they won't be able to ask for federal help during disasters such as Katrina, but won't have the resources to deal with such disasters. His domestic ideology would make the USA into a country that makes life pretty oppressive for those who aren't wealthy, and since he would abolish the EPA, even the air would be quite unbreathable. It would be in many ways a nightmarish country.

RP keeps saying things that amount to a belief, or rather lack of belief, that the framers wanted separation of church and state. He has pronounced that the founding fathers were Christians, a factual fallacy and blatant lie. He promised that as president he would pass federal legislation recognizing human life to commence at conception. This would force the states to ban abortion because any type of abortion would constitute murder and a state cannot sanction murder-it would actually take the abortion issue out of the states jurisdiction, except when prosecuting women and physicians for murder, and this is from someone who wants to limit the federal government's power and increase states power. The fact that he's absolutely right on his positions regarding foreign policy doesn't qualify him to become president. Setting foreign policy aside, he would take this nation back to about 1800, instead of moving it toward modernity and progress.