What the hell was that burst of nonsense? Could it even qualify as "doublespeak"? Probably not -- my understanding is that Orwellian doublespeak involves reversals of the clear meaning of words. I've read this War Room item 4 or 5 times, and am no closer to understanding a word of it -- forwards, backwards, upside down or inside out.

Larger issue: WHY does the media still play along with this "senior administration official" crap? If something being said by such "officials" is all that important, reliable and worthy of coverage, why provide the cover of anonymity? I just don't get it, and never will.

One certainty: You'll hear FauxNews and all the usual gang bleating about Ted Olson's intimate connection to 9/11 and how he is especially suited to fight the war on terror.

That connection, of course, comes via his late wife, Barbara, who died on American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. In no way do I minimize the devastation Mr. Olson must have felt, and must still feel, at the loss of his wife that day -- I merely point out that those supporting his widely expected nomination will flog her death shamelessly.

You can bank on that, folks -- it WILL happen if he's nominated.

Never forget: 9/11 changed EVERYTHING.

What did it change, you ask? Simply put, it removed the need for logic, consistency or accountability from our leaders. And anyone who expects logic, consistency or accountability is obviously nothing more than a surrender monkey who wants to coddle the murderous terrorists who hate us for our freedoms.

Come ON now, is it impossible to recognize progress in 2004, and continue to have progress in 2007? The two thoughts aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. I mean, even if there's only a one percent chance that we're making progress in Iraq in one percent of the indicators, and even if it's taken five long, bloody years, then isn't it worth EVERY SINGLE SACRIFICE being made by Iraq, the U.S. and our many allies?

- - - - -

Why do I hear nothing but crickets chirping? Somebody?? ANYBODY???

I'm starting to believe that Arlen Specter is the single most infuriating Republican Senator, not Joe Lieberman. (Yes, yes -- I know Joe is an "Independent" who agrees to organize the Senate as though he were still a Democrat, but still...) Where was Specter a prosecutor, and what of substance did he achieve? Guess I'll have to Wikipedia his name to find out where his reputation as a noted prosecutor came from.

Specter continues to display the most spineless, unprincipled, politically expedient behavior of anyone currently sitting in the Senate. Even when he sometimes talks the talk of a statesman, hinting that he's bucking the party line, he rarely walks the walk. When, in fact, WAS the last time the good senator actually rebelled against Dubya and the Republican leadership?

He merely makes it worse when he hints at growing a spine, but flops flat on the ground once again. And again. And again.

Nothing will change, until and unless Republicans like Hagel and Warner get the political monkey off their backs, finally being free to do what they believe is right with no concern about the effect on their electability.

Once the critical mass of Democrats and newly freed Republicans reaches a veto-proof majority, THEN we can start talking about extricating our troops from the Iraq quagmire.

Interesting, isn't it, how little regard our President has for the public sentiment here in the U.S., even as he pays lip service to concerns that the Maliki government is NOT listening to Iraqi voters?

...then you've forfeited any right to hold office as a U.S. Senator. On that basis alone, you ought to resign right away.

As for the pretense that "pressure" from a newspaper drove you to plead guilty: If you'd entered a guilty plea immediately after being arrested on June 11, rather than waiting SIX WEEKS, actually MAILING your signed plea dated August 1 to the Minnesota court, then maybe you could convince some gullible judge that you'd acted in panic without due consideration. MAYBE -- but don't bet the Brokeback Mountain ranch on it.

Sad to see someone with so little regard for the judicial process, the public, the Senate, and in the end, yourself.

...even though mizbinkley is right about the general Republican dissatisfaction with the other candidates. Why Fred Thompson? He's no better than "none of the above", in my estimation -- there are SO many others who could be "drafted", as Thompson tries to maintain is the explanation for his candidacy.

Considering that Joe Conason was born in 1954, he turned 18 in 1972 and only then would have signed up with the Selective Service. The military draft was still barely running at that point, ending soon after in 1973.

And considering Joe's college degree was granted by Brandeis Univ. in 1975, it would appear he was in college during the preceding years.

So, exactly why would you call him a draft dodger? Wishful thinking? Diversion from a real draft evader, George W. Bush?

Pathetic, Groenhagen, just pathetic.

Answer: The Möbius strip of Presidential candidates -- someone with only one surface and one edge, as impossible to nail down as Jello with a hammer. Who can understand him or his positions -- even HE doesn't appear to understand them.

Why he's vaulted to become a leading Republican presidential candidate is one of today's deepest mysteries.