Why can't the Administration defend itself by publicizing true information?

If indeed, Wilson was lying and the information put out there was erroneous, I would fully support this or any administration getting out there and setting things straight. But that is not what happened.

So why did this administration feel the best way to accomplish this was to leak information to a variety of reporters with the hope that one would take the information and go public? And the only one who did take the leaked info, Robert Novak, tried to undermine what Wilson had wrote by implying that he only got the trip to Africa because of his wife connections - that he was unqualified - that he was sort of a mommas boy?

Geez - you'd think if this administration really wanted the truth to get to the American People and stop a "liar" they would take the direct and clearer route of holding a press conference and addressing the wrongs that way.

Instead they furtively skulked around looking for an equally slimey partisan with a pen, and merely belied the "lies" with personal inuendo.

In the words of Scalia. "Quack. Quack."

Then why the subterfuge?

Bush markets himself as a "tell it like it is" guy. But to get their "message" out and to correct Wilson's "lies", this administration chose the most back handed way they could.

Which makes it look a whole lot like trying to undermine the messanger to discount his words.

Quack. Quack.

And how much is our deficit if you take away the Social Security surplus funds collected from wage earners?

This does not even account for expected increases in spending on SS

SS is currently a cash cow - generating 100 billion plus a year. These funds go into genereal funds for use by our Federal government and mask the actual deficit.

These funds are "supposed" to be paid back by the Federal government at the time (about 10 years hense) when outgoing SS payments exceed incoming SS pay roll taxes.

But right now it is a cash cow for the Feds. A slush fund that I doubt the politicos ever expect to pay back.

I am not surprized that the rape victim is still being refered to as a "woman" and for the clear reason that raping a woman is seen as less appalling as raping a 14 year old child.

I am just surprised she and her dead family are not refered to as suspected insurgents - aren't all dead Iraquis called that until proven otherwise?

While I totally agree that the age should not matter a whit when it comes to rape - rape (and murder) does seem worse when the victim is very young.

Think about this - if the victim of the rape and murder had been a male, would the press be referring to a 14 year old boy as a "man" or a "young man"? And lets define rape as forcible entry into another persons body.

I am SO glad this is getting press - but I wonder what else lies out there still hiding under the rocks. This crime ONLY got press because of the kidnap/torture/murder of 2 of the other soldiers in that unit last month. Some of their comrades in arms were worried about retailiation for the rape/murders. It was known.

If not for that - this would just be another non-news to Americans - and another reason that the Iragis in that town feel justified in attacking us.

Abu Graib only came out only due to the photographic evidence - you can place money on it being known by the Iraqis what was going on there.

There is a brother who survived. I think he was 11. Good thing he was off to school or we might be reading how our "boys" murdered a "young man", brother to the raped "woman".

We just refer to the girl/woman as "victim" or "14 year old victim"

Because that is what she is.

And the last moments of her life were horrific. She was indeed a victim of terrorism. Her parents and sister murdered in the next room, then two Americans rape her, then they kill her. At least she wasn't alive when they tried to burn up the evidence.

V I C T I M

I am sure that most people who would be trying to sneak over an electrified livestock fence would know how to short it out - or to throw a shirt over the fence before climbing over. Hell - has this guy ever even been close to such a fence?

This this isn't the same guy who things there are "Internet tubes" by any chance?

Perhaps we can let a few smart immigrants stay - and just throw back the mental midgets like King?

(And that guy who thinks the Internet is something out of the movie Brazil)

So we are stuck with BushCo until 2008 and if these jokers keep control for the 8 years after that - we would be done as a democratic world power - bankrupt in capitol, standing and ideas.

So yeah, we would be out of Iraq then - we probably would not be able to maintain a presense after that date.

Oh - and what is the year the Social Security stops collecting more than it pays out? Somewhere between 2016 and 2018.

They would resign because European countries are still multi-partied democracies.

Bush would have been voted out in 2004.

Apparently that littel session behind the wood shed went well.

Let's hope this Specialist only suffers tar and feathering from the media and "conservatives" - I would worry more about retaliation from his unit. Speaking out - and saying the wrong thing can get you on a lot of patrols, and a lot longer duty day.

That Specialist who whistleblew on Abu Graib was put into protective custody - with his family. This fellow won't get the media attention, but he'll still be known to his unit and chain of command.

They are not the ones getting their limbs and life ripped away.