1. Pro-lifers are hypocrites cuz they pretend to care about unborn babies but think certain convicts should be executed. (hint: maybe its cuz babies haven't been convicted)

No, pro-lifers are hypocrites because they claim to revere the fetus one minute after conception, but then never show any care for children one minute after birth.

2. Its wrong to make judgments about other people and cultures--we are all just the same. (why conservatives always have and always will have to pull naive liberal butts out of the fire)

Actually, this is just a straw man. I don't know any liberals who think people are all "just the same". As for "naive", who thought the army invading Iraq would be greeted with flowers and love songs?

3. The only people who oppose gay marriage are hate-filled homophobes. (Hmmm. Maybe society has an interest in providing the privileges associated with civil marriage to couples who can naturally procreate)

Maybe society has an interest in providing education only to the people in the economic situation that proves they can benefit from that education? Women and blacks need not apply.

Seriously, when has commitment to child-bearing been a requirement of marriage? In any case, this argument precludes the possibility of gay parenthood, which, coincidentally is also opposed by the homophobes on the basis that it is 'immoral'.

Because, let's be honest about why some people oppose gay marriage. It's not based on any arguments about child birth. It's because gays are teh Evil, ya know?

4. Bush knew Saddam didn't have any WMD. (Yeah, then so did Clinton and pretty much the rest of the world)

Plenty of people knew that Saddam didn't have WMDs. The best intelligence available at the time knew this to be the case. Read the Risen book.

It is true that a lot of people thought that Saddam might have WMDs. But that's not what Bush was claiming. Bush claimed that not only was their a possibility, but the administration repeatedly trotted out fabricated evidence to support this conclusion.

Your argument only makes sense if you think that the Clintons would be expected to have access to all the CIA reports filed in 2002 saying that there were no active WMD programs.

(In any case, you may have noticed that a lot of liberals are annoyed with the Clintons, who have a bad habit of playing along with the neocon agenda. Tony Blair has been doing the same thing.)

5. Saddam's WMD were the only reason we went into Iraq. (Read the NYTimes archives for 2002 and 2003; read the Spanish Ambassador's statement for going into Iraq, the gist of which was, when you tell someone there will be consequences if they misbehave, you better be willing to enforce them.)

Ah yes, the old 'spank the naughty child' argument. Of course, the alleged offense Iraq was being 'punished' for was for not showing where the WMDs were. Seems a bit stupid to me. But I'm sure it's a comfort to you that, several hundred deaths later, Saddam Hussein has been punished for the crime you accused him of, but he seemingly did not commit.

The truth is that the war fever was basaed on the dubious notion that the US had some right to 'punish' Iraq like a recalcitrant child. Or it was based on the need to discover the WMD program. Or was it the connection to terrorists? Or to restore order to the region?

The pathetic thing is that each of these alleged justifications has been adequately debunked by now. And the real reason people wanted the war is because they wanted to kick some Arab ass. And Bush was auch a stupid ass, it didn't matter to him that the Arabs he wanted to attack didn't have a damned thing to do with terrorism, or that they weren't involved in supplying WMDs to terrorists.

As for punishing defiance, the US needs to learn the lesson of the incompetent father, that the more obedience is demanded for irrational reasons, the more it will lead to problems and 'disobedience'.

Sigh. Another pointless 'bipartisan ticket' column.

You guys bored or something? As I said in response to the Obama/Hagel speculation, has any party ever done this in 200 years? Is there any reason to think that party loyalists would stand by and let this happen?

if he sits this one out.

Not all constituencies are equal. The demographic "well educated people who care about civil liberties" is overwhelmingly on his side, and represents a signficant percentage of the population. The time for him to do something is now. I wonder if he realizes that.

The GOP got everything they wanted in the bill and don't have to worry about dirty dark secrets being aired.

The Democrats got the agreement of the media to pretend they actually did something, and don't have to worry about millions of telecom dollars being aimed their way come the fall elections.

I mean, sure it smells like appeasement, but really it's a compromise.

Nancy Pelosi has a larger majority in the House than the Republicans ever had during the Gingrich/DeLay years from 1995-2007. And this is what we get?

10% of the seats flipped parties in 2006, and this is what we get?

Pelosi has to go. Her leadership has been disgraceful from Day 1. She is so concerned about annoying Republicans that she doesn't actually bother to lead the Democratic caucus in any meaningful way.