Then why do you people waste time pointing fingers at the past rather than pushing for a better present.

Perhaps because the idiots who made the critical mistakes in the recent past refuse to get the hell out of the way, insisting on 'staying the course'?

Perhaps because idiots like you refuse to even acknowledge those errors in judgement and commission, preferring to stay on a course of action that is proven not to work?

Perhaps because those of us who actually care about the security of this country have to understand the full dimension of this disaster your crowd has marched us all into, the better to try and ensure it doesn't happen again?

You and your ilk are already doomed, shooter242. Pardon the rest of us in choosing not to join you marching off the cliff.

But I suspect the real offense here is that Leiberman proved the Democrat party doesn't represent the desires of the people of Conneticut.

Perhaps. By the same toke one is hard pressed to say the Senator or his friends in the Republic Party 'represents' the desires of the people of Connecticut or the United States on any issue any longer.

In any case its not really relevant to the topic of Gerstein save to note the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Anything to say to that?

Didn't think so.

But I suspect the real offense here is that Leiberman proved the Democrat party doesn't represent the desires of the people of Conneticut.

Perhaps. By the same toke one is hard pressed to say the Senator or his friends in the Republic Party 'represents' the desires of the people of Connecticut or the United States on any issue any longer.

In any case its not really relevant to the topic of Gerstein save to note the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Anything to say to that?

Didn't think so.

feel hope so do our enemies. 9/11 part two is on the way and our enemies will just wait for the appeasers to take control.

Who are 'our enemies', tiberius? Al Qaeda or the Dixie Chicks?

Who are 'the appeasers', tiberius? The ones who had plans in place to deal with Al Qaeda back in 2000, or the ones who ignored those plans in 2001 and can't be bothered to come up with ones that work in 2007?

Then you can all really feel good.

Like you did when 9/11 happened, tiberius?

How many more Americans have to die before you feel 'good' about yourself again, tiberius?

To keep carping about this years later, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, is in very poor taste to say the least.

My gods, you really believe that, don't you? You honestly and truly have sold yourself to the idea, haven't you?

More importantly it denigrates our troops and encourages our enemies.

Whereas the White House pushing a loosing strategy in the field and ignoring the needs of the troops at home does...what? Cements Bush's reputation for stupidity?

If the Democrats think these cheap theatrics are a winning political strategy, then they are plain nuts. Can you say boomerang?

Enjoy being in the minority, friend nabalzbbfr. I expect you'll be there for a long time to come. It's called "boomerang" and "blowback", you see.

Pity these three won't simply disappear as those three luminiaries did.

Wonder who is going to serve in the role of "Comrade Ogilvy"?

Pity these three won't simply disappear as those three luminiaries did.

Wonder who is going to serve in the role of "Comrade Ogilvy"?

I really have no idea why you imply that I would support rounding up people willy nilly without warrants - but as I have noted in many of your columns, you always seem to take an idea and distort it to make your point. I thought the point of this column was an argument if Habeas Corpus has situations where it could be suspended.

You're serious, aren't you? You really thought he was writing in favor of such suspension.

English isn't your first language, is it? Or are you simply among the thousands of Americans who can't read?

If the Congress can't or won't do something about this and spends it time passing Retroactive Un-Allowing the War bills then it's possible that entire system or the people in it had irretrievably broken down.

I've never seen such a complete butchery of written english as bloody as this.

The worst part is I think s/he was trying to communicate a real sentiment here, but I've no idea what it was.

Perhaps s/he is having a medication malfunction or they were a 'guest' at Camp X-Ray for a bit. Certainly Winston Smith wasn't much better when he was released from the Ministry of Love.

I'm a Democrat since probably before you smashed your first Starbucks window. I'm not sure I've ever watched more than 15 secs of FoxNews.

I'm utterly lost on this dialect of Wingnutese. Can someone please translate it to simple english?

For the very simple reason that if one chooses to weight openess over security, one has to admit to choosing "acceptable" numbers of deaths over doing everything possible to limit those deaths. In other words, Democrats have no plan "B", just criticisms of Plan "A".

Is he actually advocating a choice between deliberate mass murder and outright totalitarianism? Or is he just recycling the same factually incorrect dross? His butchery of english makes it difficult to tell.

think this was a similar approach Professor Dershowitz was trying to reach some compromise on as well. What do you think about torture warrants, so that SOME court at least has to review and approve the use of torture to prevent something like a ticking-timebomb scenario?

Torture warrants?

Legal warrants to torture people?

The legalization of the systematic and deliberate torture of people?

And you expect us to take you seriously? About anything?