to the extent certainty is not. That is; doubt and certainty are relative (& closely related.), in this case, to virtue.

I am certain I have my doubts. I doubt Iraq had wmd, was connected to 9/11, or has anything to do with Obama.

Well, I'm not so sure about the last one.

bah.

There is no more pressing issue facing the U.S. today, perhaps the entire world, than the Iraq war (*on global terrorism - as it is my understanding that is now the sole justification for U.S. presence there - 'the front on global terrorism?')

The far-reaching consequences of unjustifiable U.S. pre-eminance through the use of military force in world affairs will be a destablizing force for generations to come.

To say that I am disappointed in Sen. Clintons support for the Iraq 'war' would be a gross understatement.

Furthermore, Sen. Clinton's more recent assertions that the Bush Adm. 'mis-used'(?) her vote for the authorization for use of force in Iraq seems disingenuous at best. Her assertions that she was fully briefed and 'aware of all the arguments'-notwithstanding the intell-estimate and UN inspectors reports to the contrary - seems a bit more than a lack of the 'vision thing'!

bah.

Q; If it's true that the 'leaker(s)' in the Plame investigation 'are known' to be Armitage and Rove, why haven't they been prosocuted as well?

It seems beyond dispute at this point everybody knows Plame was a 'covert' cia employee - and that gov. officials w/ security clearances were responsible for 'knowing' Plame was covert - and that it is *illegal* to disclose the name of a covert cia employee.

If I recall, Pres. Bush made the point during the investigations early stages that any 'leaks coming from' the WH in this matter would punished serverely. [rhetorically, no doubt.]

Was this some sort of 'slip and fall' leak? Just asking. Goes to intent?

sincerely,

Bah.

whoever she was, her line of questioning really turns me on.

humming.

Well, it's not like it was true the first time either. Sadly, I believed it even less the first time. (ie. less then, more now)

bah.

...why the hell didn't you say so, Greenwald.

Helen,/GG excellent interview. Thanks. I'm impressed.

I must confess, Helen, when GG posed his 'remarks' about 'the mysterious' reporter in the 'incident' with Mr. Snow this day past - that is; "only one person would be [crazy] enough to ask these tough questions" (paraphrase)- , I was intially at a loss! Even more frustrating, I was left to rely on Tony Snow for even the first name, 'Helen'. "Helen who", I pondered?

Now I know you, Helen. You are the reporter in the 'back row'. I am a big fan of the back row. You too, Glenn.

humming.

and many miles to go before I wake.

bah.

is not 'growing'. Out of compost.

It wasn't that long ago, I recall, I could come home from a hard days night, plop down, reach behind the cushion, locate the remote, turn on NPR's News Hour (when McNeil was still there.)...while the following Sunday morning curling-up with a New York Times, and feel somewhat informed (& in shape). Or, at least, know which way the wind was blowing.

sigh. Those were the days. Foh! And it will be a long Road Home!

Nowadays, I have to hunt and peck. In obscure places like... a saloon (dang nation) with "back row" reporters like Helen and Glenn Greenwald just to stay abreast.

humming.

(doo-wop)

you, too, could have been screamed-at and ridiculed by a funny little feller in a bow-tie!

Thankfully, it's not logistics that keep me off Tuckers show - butt, for the record, if Tucker screamed too loud at me, i'd slap that tart silly-sober (manly aye, but I like too. Plus, give em' something real to talk about.).

Monica! Jebus, I can't tell you the conversations I've had w/ Bush supporters where the subject of Monica has reared it's ugly head (make pun, if you want to.).

For some strange reason, most of these Bush supporters (mostly well-to-do Rep.'s), if pressed, will concede that the Iraq 'war' (on evil) was/is ill-concieved - once we can get-around the 'poor execution' excuse. But almost without exception, the next words that fall from their lips is: Bill Clinton and his disgrace of the presidency and all human decency.

It's very weird to me. I have no explanation for it.

sincerely,

bah.

Still more White House secrecy -- this time in the Tillman investigation.

Try to stay calm, Glenn. I believe you.

sincerely,

david

(what my friends call me ... if I'm lucky.)

but V. Plame was a national secruity secret.

What was this President's prerogative to "protect" national security "secrets" with respect to WH officals disclosing Ms. Plames covert (secret) status as a cia employee... and why should it be respected?

What was the Presidents prerogative to protect Mr. Wilsons investigations (secret?) concerning Iraq purchase of yellowcake?

Why does THIS PRESIDENT'S prerogative concerning national security secrets "need" to be respected wrt wmd, al-qeada/Iraq connection and, hence, the justification for the Iraq war?

To the contrary, this President's prerogative to "protect" 'national security secrets' concerning the Iraq war has been proven false and unjustifiable and deserves no respect.

And that is the point of 'national security secrets'... to provide justification (or not) for action. In the case of war, it is always justification that NEEDS to be crystal clear ... and respected, regardless of who is President.

'we have given you a democracy madam, if you can keep it.'

regards,

Bah.