Wasn't this supposed to be "over in six months"?

From the days leading up to the war:

* Feb. 7, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to U.S. troops in Aviano, Italy: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

* March 4, Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at a breakfast with reporters: "What you'd like to do is have it be a short, short conflict. . . . Iraq is much weaker than they were back in the '90s," when its forces were routed from Kuwait.

* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months."

... that he picked the year 2013, which is conveniently the year after he would be running for re-election if he manages to get elected this November.

OTOH, it isn't a very impressive display of confidence.

... for your timely and cogent commentary. The hysteria was getting a little thick for my taste.

Anyway here is what this law means. It means practical changes real world scenarios. ...

So things will have to change. Are you suggesting that decisions involving basic rights should be based on convenience?

The California Supreme Court has guaranteed a Republican triumph in November.

With any luck, the Republicans will believe this and depend on it.

I'm sure there were cases of similar kinds of harassment before we had the internet. What laws would prosecutors have used if this had been done by mail, or over the telephone, or by any other means that wasn't internet-based?

I am not a lawyer, but I suspect the prosecutors are going down a dangerous path just because it's the most convenient way for them to proceed.

Iran now has 25% unemployment and 25% inflation.

I'm impressed. Bush is going to have to hustle to catch up with them.

... what does Bush call the negotiations that his diplomatic team has been attending in North Korea?

You're missing the point, which is that there is a difference between negotiation and appeasement. The reich-wing blowhards who are calling Obama an "appeaser" don't seem to know this.

First, Reagan re-established American military stregnth and prestige - THEN he opened talks with the Soviets. In the present case, the US is far to divided by political partisanship, and our military is far too stretched.

You seem to be saying that Bush's rash actions in Iraq have left us in such a poor situation that we have no choice but to do more of the same.

This is not a very compelling argument. In particular, it completely fails to address the possibility that more rash actions will make our situation even worse.

I agree that Lori Drew's alleged acts, if she committed them, are reprehensible and deserving of punishment. However, I think we should take a step back and analyze this in a manner that is independent of the specific acts being prosecuted.

What we seem to have is a situation where acts that were not otherwise criminal being made criminal by virtue of having been performed using MySpace. Forget about whether or not the acts themselves should be criminal. This prosecutor is trying to turn legal actions into a crime by adding the MySpace TOS.

I think this would set a dangerous precedent. If this works, we can expect other prosecutors to turn other legal acts into crimes by similar legal contortions. As an example, gay lovers using email to discuss moving to Massachusetts to get married might be prosecuted for violating their ISP's TOS by using the service to plan an act that is illegal in the state where they presently reside.

If Lori Drew's alleged acts cannot presently be prosecuted without such legal gymnastics then we should fix the law. Twisting the law to allow prosecution of acts that should be illegal, but are not, is asking for trouble.

The economy is too awful and people know it's because of the war and the failed leadership of the GOP.

I agree. That's why the reich-wing noise machine is trying so hard to talk about anything *but* policies and results. The Kathleen Parker piece we are discussing here is just one example.

It is amusing that Republican leaders are now discussing the need to devise a new message and remake their brand. They seem pathologically incapable of realizing that it's the product that stinks, not the package.

Linking our current economic downturn with the expenditures in Iraq may serve the Democrats well in the coming election. It could be good politics, but it's poor economics.

I'm curious. What do you think are the causes of our economic malaise?

Yiddish proverb: "A half truth is a whole lie".

No compound sentences are required. I'll explain it clearly. 1) We need Florida and Michigan to win the general election 2) People in these states are angry because their votes are not counting 3) We need their votes.

This presumes that people in Florida and Michigan will be so annoyed at the results of political gaming that they will vote against their own best interests out of spite.

I do not think this is a compelling argument. I'm sure that some people will be stupid enough to do this, but I doubt that large numbers of people will vote this way.

That's just what McCain needs: Another chickenhawk on his ticket to make sure there isn't a trace of balance in his approach to foreign policy. This is a sure-fire winning strategy when so many people think Iraq was a lousy idea.

Some countries presently like us, or at least pretend to, because we buy their stuff. We won't even have that going for us after the rest of the world replaces us in the role of customer.