I use my real name too, but don't know what that means in the long run.

Anyway -- here's the question: Based on your comments denigrating Sen. Reid, is it fair to say that you do NOT approve of civilian control of the military? Or do you put a finer point on it -- should only those civilians WHO HAVE SERVED IN THE MILITARY be allowed to become President and Commander in Chief, or members of Congress? Like it or not, Congress does have constitutional duties and powers related to the military; thankfully, the President does not have unilateral control of the military in every sense.

Secondary questions -- do you admit the generally accepted fact that Pres. Bush had to get rid of a large part (maybe even most) of the senior military command connected with the war in Iraq to find someone like Petraus who would implement the "surge strategy"? And what do you make of the senior generals and admirals who reportedly turned down offers or inquiries to become the "war czar" for this President? Are THEY "chickenshits" too?

Is everyone who disagrees with this President and his strategy a "chickenshit"? Is it necessary to stoop to such idiotic name-calling? Does it make you TOUGH and a non-sissy? Does being TOUGH make you right, and those you disagree with wrong?

Grow up and act like an adult. Disagree without being monumentally disagreeable yourself, OK? That goes for others who like to throw the trash-talk around too...

Delay can't really have looked up the definition. (If he did, was he driving himself? Let's hope he was being chauffeured!) Webster defines treason thusly:

1 : the betrayal of a trust : TREACHERY

2 : the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family

Nope, Congressional leaders are definitely not guilty of treason, using either definition. I suppose, to be more generous than anyone should be, DeLay is probably invoking definition number 1, but if anyone is guilty of betraying a trust, it AIN'T Congress -- it's this President, who has been entrusted with the executive powers of the Federal government. It's hard to point out any area in which he and his administration have NOT been guilty of misfeasance, malfeasance, ineptitude, general corruption, and outright lying.

The leading GOP candidates KNOW they have nothing to offer except fear and the perception of tough action against "the enemy". What else can they try to sell to us? They're totally spent right now.

The little Republican boys who cried "Wolf!" have cried too many times. Nobody believes them any more -- people know that there was no wolf in Iraq threatening the U.S., but now our armed forces are being fed to wolves that were spawned in Iraq precisely BECAUSE we foolishly invaded that country.

The more interesting upcoming event to watch will be McCain's formal announcement today of his candidacy -- it would be expected, I think, that he'll get some kind of bump in his poll ratings immediately afterward. Let's all pay close attention to Iowa and New Hampshire in particular -- I'm willing to bet that his "bump" will be insignificant, failing to stop his slide into well-deserved oblivion.

He was often referred to as the "Happy Warrior" -- however, I don't think Dubya is QUITE the same sort of leader as the former Vice President (for all of Humphrey's faults).

THIS "Happy Warrior" is oblivious, obstinate and strangely pleased to be a "War President", regardless of his weird protestations that no one wants to BE a war president.

"What, me worry?" has been pointed out by many others as the real motto we should hang in the Current Occupant. Quite so.

It's dangerous to try to identify events that are important turning points, right in the midst of a crisis -- sometimes you do need to wait for further events to unfold, or even the longer historical perspective. Some notable ones that come to mind are Walter Cronkite's turning against the Vietnam War on the CBS Evening News, and Alexander Butterfield's revelation that tape recordings existed of Nixon's Oval Office operations.

But THIS is going to be interesting -- first the legal battle over Goodling's testimony (a lost cause, if they try to invoke executive privilege), followed by unearthing the mother lode of truth it seems obvious she's protecting.

...but if Goodling planned to lie all along, why would she draw attention to herself by taking the Fifth? If this were all planned, surely the idea of granting immunity occurred to the planners, whoever they might be!

"Republican Amnesia" has been the standard plea throughout all recent administration controversies, and so far it's worked. No reason to think this staffer would be excluded from the game plan everyone else has stuck to until now -- unless she were really looking to cover her OWN rear end, rather then protect someone else.

The day she sits that rear end down in a Congressional witness chair to testify under oath will be a Day to Remember!

Hmmm, let's see -- what is an EFFECTIVE way to loosen the tongue that doesn't violate anyone's human rights?

Wait a minute, I've got a foggy recollection of something in the news the last year or two -- what WAS that, anyway? I vaguely remember some sinister White House official with a strange scowl on his face admitting we had a really "useful" technique to drag confessions out of detainees.

Waterspouting, caterwauling, wetbacking, skateboarding -- no, none of those are quite right..

Oh, yeah -- WATERBOARDING!!! Maybe the Senate Sergeant-at-Arms could arrest AG Gonzalez and hold him at an undisclosed location (via extraordinary rendition, perhaps?) and EXTRACT the needed information in this universally acceptable manner.