It's amazing how often news articles leave out statistics on Iraqi casualties, despite the fact that at least a couple of the administration's justifications for the war were based on Iraqi quality of life.

Now that it appears clear that both political parties in the US are ready to cut-and-run on bringing normal life back to Iraq (not that it would be possible for the US to do so at this point), exactly what can one say to an Iraqi - or any global citizen for that matter - who perceives the US to be a dangerously irresponsible influence, at best?

Just so people don't misconstrue my previous post, when I say "cut and run," I don't mean I think the US should stay as an occupier - I was referring to statements from members of both parties who appear not only ready to pull out troops, but to place all future responsibility for recovery on the shattered Iraqi people.

The symbolism inherent in the push for the so-called "flag desecration" amendment would be funny, were there not so many serious matters spilling over these days. That outlawing the 2 or 3 flag burnings per year in the US - through a constitutional amendment, no less - in a time of war, domestic spying, economic stagnation (for the bottom 90 percent), failing medical care, crumbling infrastructure, etc. etc., tells you just about all you need to know about the Republican Party.

People For the American Way has some pretty good resources on this amendment at www.FlagAmendment.org.

While I have no bone to pick with Sklar's decision to leave the Bush/Guard angle out of her Rather analysis, she might have pointed out that Rather’s story was accurate.

While some of the evidence presented appears to have been problematic, the story was correct. No credible person disputes that strings were pulled to get Bush a cushy Guard position. Yet the coverage of the Rather report has consistently implied CBS got the whole story wrong.

Put in another context: if Iraq did have WMD's, but the aluminum tube part of the story was still bunk, would anyone have gotten fired for running the tube story? Heck – no one got fired for running the tube story and the WMD claim was bs.

That's rather fair and balanced.

If people want to talk about open secrets, a big one is the fact that motives in Washington DC almost never coincide with public bluster.

The "outrage" over SWIFT reporting is all about shutting down oversight from the press. The Flag Amendment was all about painting defenders of free speech as unpatriotic during the fall campaigns. Banning gay marriage is all about voter turnout (as if the spawn of Gingrich respected the institution of marriage).

Hell, even the debate on the war is pretty useless other than sending vague signals to voters. How does setting, or not setting, indeterminate future deadlines for redeployment fix the current morass? And even if it could, what does it matter when the debates were over non-binding resolutions that have no legal power?

The big open secret is that Congress is getting paid to do nothing for the voters - whether the voters want a militant Christian nation or secular world peace. The disturbing corollary is that we are left with only two branches of government: Bush and the judges he appoints.

This gives a green light to re-redistricting 24/7 in state legislatures across the land. One can imagine changing districts every two years, which could drive to extinction whatever democratic accountability remains in the federal House.

Given analysts' repeated findings that election technology used since 2002 can be hacked and results altered without evidence (except for anomalous exit polls), why would anyone take seriously those who assert previous elections were not stolen. Looks to me like there is no way to prove they weren't.

Before anyone says, "this is not proof the were stolen," you miss my point. I believe we should be able to prove they were not and cannot be stolen.

The impact of the Hamdan v Rumsfeld ruling is greatly diminished by giving the administration control over when it kicks in (e.g. when "hostilities" end).

Cillizza never writes anything useful - it's like the column of out-of-date (and often wrong) convential beltway wisdom. Perfect for the Washington Post.

Gore will fight Clinton to keep the party from moving to the "ideological center?" I think there are many ways to determine where the "center" is - most of which would put it in closer proximity to Gore. Why doesn't Cillizza just say "the right?" Everyone would agree that Clinton is to the right of Gore wherever they are in relation to the mythical center.

As for his praise of Gingrich, this piece appears more a vehicle for pushing Gingrich coverage and legitimacy (maybe Cillizza cocktails with a campaign worker) than real analysis. And his claim that McCain is one to keep an eye on - jeez, I don't think that's a hard one to figure out (or will it take much effort to do, given the media love of McCain). If Cillizza wanted to inform readers about a GOP candidate to keep an eye on who is out of the picture, he might have mentioned someone like Hagel, who is likely to emerge as a major contender given his mix of conservatism, independence and anti-war statements.