Interesting, a David Smith lived across the street from me when I was growing up, but I digress.

As Bill Mauldin said about a GI who was asked by a Wehrmacht solder how the liked his new Italian allies and replied that the German could have them back, the GI was from an area where diplomacy bows to honesty. I tend to follow that model.

I suppose I should have said that our esteemed Commander-in-Chief was a variable-volumed container of fecal material of dubious credibility, but I thought that there might be some Republicans reading this and knowing that at least some of them are of a sufficiently low intellectual caliber as to be able ingest Mr. Bush's statements of amazing lack of verisimilitude without immediate postprandial disgorgement, I thought I would keep it to words of two syllables or fewer.

What a wonderful rhetorical device. Kind of like a mugger pointing a gun at his own head and telling the victim that if he doesn't fork over the cash that he'll pull the trigger and then the victim will be guilty of murder. If the Dems didn't cave, it would be used to full effect, and the Dems, true to type, caved.

Of course, you never hear the flip side of this little gem, in that it indicates a willingness on the part of those using the phrase to leave the troops in Iraq regardless of the lack of funding, in effect pointing that mugger's gun at 100,000+ heads.

I am happy to say that my Congressman, Jay Inslee, saw though the ruse. Unfortunately my two Senators were just too lacking in the requisite intestinal fortitude, or too willing to sacrifice a few troops' lives to keep their seats.

when apologists for this misbegotten CF can make an announced visit and walk around without all the escort, helmet, and armor.

BTW - Joe looks just as ridiculous as Mike Dukakis did in the tank.

The water lilies are obviously there so they can dodge THE nagging question. You know the theological puzzle of our time: Did Adam and Eve have navels? I'll bet all you boys and girls thought it was so they didn't have to show the naughty, dangly bits, didn't you. Shows how little you understand the true puzzles of theology.

It's at least as important a question as: If the T. Rex was vegetarian back in Eden, why isn't he colored purple? And what's he doing with all those nasty tearing teeth? Or did they evolve , er I mean develop those after the fall?

There's a reason that "creationism" sounds so much like "cretinism".

A quick check of Jim DeMint's Wikipedia biography didn't turn up any mention of military service. He was draft-bait back in the late 60s and could have enlisted, but I guess he had "other priorities" as well.

One thing I note about Yellow Elephants, they're so much more willing to sacrifice somebody else's kids than to admit that Commander Codpiece may not be the second coming.

And that's not saying there's anything "wrong" with a gay couple raising children; it's saying it's not the ideal.

Didn't do well in our logic courses did we?

If you're something's "not the ideal", it's because you think that there is something "wrong" with it. If you want to say that you don't think same-sex couples provide as good a home for kids as a straight couple, just say it. Oh and by the way, do try and back it up with some hard data if you can find any.

The Dems having their debate on Fox should occur the night after the Republican hopefuls have a debate broadcasted on Air America and moderated by Michael Moore. I mean, if they can't stand up to Air America and Moore, how can they claim to be able to face down al-Qaida and OBL?

Or, I guess maybe I should say that the debate should be held on Fox the night after hell freezes over, as it has a better chance of happening.

The congressmen tell Cheney that it would be "deeply divisive, and invite deep cynicism and disrespect for the legal process," if Americans were to conclude that Libby "undertook actions that subjected him to criminal liability to protect you, knowing or believing, or having the facts ultimately reveal, that you would thereafter take steps to protect him from the consequences of his criminal conduct."

I suspect that it would also be correct, regardless of any announcement of Cheney recusing himself. It's kind of pitiful to be able to say it, but it should be obvious to all by now this malAdministration does not give a damn about either the law, or the average person's opinion of any member of their coterie.

An exercise of power will trump good government every time with this crew.

And 21% believe that they take regular rides in them.

Even if this vote actually gets to the floor (can it be stopped by 40 Republicans?), I'd expect to see a 51-50 vote against the resolution, with the Jr Senator from CT and Darth Cheney voting against.

You know, I'm focused on protecting our kids.

So to paraphrase Fredo, you're either with him, or you're with the child molesters.

Every time you think they've just about hit rock bottom they manage to wiggle a little deeper into another pocket of bottom ooze.

why Junior feels the need to claim executive privilege. I mean, what's so sensitive about "I'm sorry Senator/Congresman, but I can't recall" anyway?