You are actually ignoring a couple of important things when you make your arguments.

First, what's this "Hate to tell you folks, but there was not ONE loud demonstration"? I personally attended 4 very large and loud anti-war demonstrations in D.C. alone, one of which easily exceeded 200,000 persons, and one (held after the invasion) where we were subjected to police violence. But, these were opinions Bush and his enablers in the Media felt free to ignore. Several of these large demonstrations, despite their size, didn't even make the Washington Post front page, or even the A section. That doesn't mean they didn't happen. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War and http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/Iraq/102702_pictures_of_anti.htm for pics of demonstrations around the country and the World.) And what about all those huge demonstrations Latinos held nationwide in opposition to anti-immigrant sentiment? They happened too. (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/01/immigrant.day/index.html http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/poli-m03.shtml). Or how about the protests at the Republican National Convention in NYC? (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Republican_National_Convention_protest_activity)

Second, yes, we "elected" Bush twice. But simply stating this sweeps under the rug the gross electoral misconduct that enabled these "elections" to swing Bush's way. The Supreme Court un-Constitutionally (and unconscionably) halted a recount in Florida that almost certainly would have changed the outcome of the first "election", which Bush "won" with a minority of popular votes. And aggressive Republican efforts at voter disenfranchisement likely swung both 2000 and 2004, and almost certainly reduced Obama's margin of victory. (see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-and-greg-palast/drinking-the-acorn-koolai_b_138390.html for more)

Yes, too many of us are politically dumb, ignorant and apathetic. I agreed we must not accept this 'looking forward, not back' crap; we must demand justice. But you are being unfair.

I think everyone involved should be prosecuted, but I worry that failed prosecutions might lead to supposed vindication. That's the one and only problem I see with the plan. If those involved come away being able to claim innocence, the effect would literally be worse than doing nothing.

There is that Democratic Timidity(™) again. If you want meaningful change you are going to have to be bolder than that. I would also question your premise that prosecuting and losing is worse than doing nothing. What do you base this on? At least if we prosecute and lose, we still have asserted that we feel these are prosecutable crimes. And future "leaders" might not wish to take their chances. If we do nothing, we tacitly accept a two-tier legal system, where some are above the law.

Be bold! As Lord Tennyson said:

"'Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."

Now we can tell the ignoramuses from those who know their Constitution.

As if we couldn't before...

The man just doesn't understand that in a democracy, We The People are boss, not him. If, say, We The People wish to give precedence to principles over our own security, then that is our call, not his. That if we wish to express our desires through our laws, that he has no right to ignore them.

Jerk.

One of the things I liked so much about Obama's inaugural address is that it set some standards against which any action of the Obama administration could be measured. One in particular:

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

The ideals he mentions here are the ones enshrined in our Constitution. Any National Security Court which allows evidence obtained by torture to be used would clearly violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, and clearly violate the spirit and letter of his inaugural address. Here is something we can hold him to.

...was the Rev. Joseph Lowery's benediction.

"God of our weary years, God of our silent tears..."

I'm one of the "non-believers" Obama talked about, but this had my full attention.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pEH37JIgBU

I agree. "Non-believers" is as awkward as he made it sound. The word is inherently exclusive (as in "those who aren't in our club of believers"), which is ironic as he intended to be inclusive.

At first I cast around for a better word, but then the realization came that we shouldn't even be prating on and on about God at these events. Religion and spirituality are deeply personal things, and these events are public and belong to all of us, "believers" and "non-believers" alike.

I'll be rooting for the Cards, but I'm worried about their 'D'. Did you see the faces on that defense when McNabb and the Eagles put a whooping on them in the 2nd half? They were beat. Psychologically, they had lost that game, and if Warner and his men had gone 3-and-out instead of pounding out that magnificent drive, that 'D' could not have been counted on for anything and the Eagles would be in the SB.

Boldin's antics have me worried too. He should be delighted to make the Super Bowl, not griping about how he was utilized.

I disagree with Roethlisberger's critics here. He's quite good, especially under pressure. This goes double if Hines Ward can play. We know Warner and his offense can play. We know Pittsburgh's defense can play. That will be the show. But it will comes down to whether the the Cardinals defense can slow the Pittsburgh offense enough. That will decide the outcome.