I get the impression things have worked out pretty well for Rumsfeld, Cheney and Addington. The problem with Grieve's assessment is that he assumes that Cheney et al actually care about prosecuting terrorists. Where's the evidence? The only thing they've done consistently is avoid having any limits imposed; beyond that there's not much, other than to cast dispersions on question askers.

As for the Supreme Court ruling, I can imagine 50 different ways the White House and its allies on Capitol Hill can drag their feet such that due process does not reach the detainees before Bush leaves office. Here’s one plausible scenario: let Congress take few months to enact a new, unconstitutional process; if there are any sensible restrictions in that process via signing statement; wait for someone to challenge the new process/neglected parts of the new process; start it at the bottom of the court system, using right-wing judicial appointments to slow it down; let the SC strike it down (if it does); start all over again.

Old Joe reminds us how little democratic representation we have in the US Senate. About half the nation (which must mean a vast majority of Democrats) support a concrete plan for redeploying troops out of Iraq, with dates. Only three senators supported such a plan – and the war is an issue that is among the most pressing for Americans, according to polls.

It goes beyond the war. Most Americans favor single-payer healthcare (again, a vast majority of Democrats), yet not a single senator is leading a charge for this. And according to polls, healthcare is a top issue for voters. (Of course, there are any number of senators who will lead the charge for privatized accounts and other industry goals.)

Most Americans favor paying more taxes to make crumbling schools better, yet no senator is leading the way to impose the taxes necessary to do this. Education polls as a top issue among voters. (Again, there are senators who will push the voucher programs, for which there is almost zero grassroots demand.)

Now look at the issues voters don't care much about - banning gay marriage, banning Flag burning, imposing fines on wardrobe malfunctions. These issues get robust debate and votes on Capitol Hill.

I thought democracies were defined by their subjugation to the people's will?

When a thing has been said and said well, take it and copy it. Plagiarists at least have the quality of preservation.

I work in a field where fair use comes into play often. Ultra2bob is talking apples and oranges. "Fair use" deals with how much of some other source you can use without their permission. Plagiarism is passing off someone else's work as your own. Completely different issues.

It costs money to keep up with the products on these shows. The message is "frugal clothes = ugly woman." I don't watch these shows, but I bet the commercials that are interspersed with show sell their wares on the viewers' insecurities.

For starters:

1. the Western effort to privatize Iraqi oil production would be endangered, raising the possibility of nationalized oil (the worst offense any nation can commit) and dampening next-quarter projections for Exxon-Mobile shareholders;
2. it will make installing our rotating puppet governments more difficult;
3. Halliburton and other GOP donor corporations would lose open-ended, taxpayer-robbing contracts;
4. American voters might focus on other Bush screw-ups.

While it is true that the US being bogged down in Iraq reduces our ability to launch preemptive war on other nations, N. Korea was never going to be a preemptive target. Why? Because unlike Iraq, it doesn't have a shitload of our oil underneath its disposable population.

To conclude that oil is not the driving force behind our activities in Iraq is to ignore: 1) our preoccupation with changing Iraqi law to increase privatization of national resources and assets; 2) our government's stunningly blatant unwillingness to prioritize anything else related to the stated reasons for invasion (security, schools, real democracy, life, death, freedom, etc.).

As long as Iraqi oil is either off the market due to chaos (keeping global prices high) or comes back online only under the control of Western corporations, the "mission is accomplished" - at least from the point of view of the US/British oil industry.

The deficits are actually much worse than presented because money owed to Social Security is left out. What Bush and Think Progress (and those who call Clinton's budget "a surplus") ignore is the fact that Social Security surpluses, which the government borrows to pay for discretionary spending, are not general revenue and must be treated like other debt. In fact, government bonds are issued and held for this debt owed to Social Security.

In other words, Think Progress, Bill Clinton, both George Bushes and just about everyone else, has been counting money we are borrowing as free revenue. That's like taking out a loan and calling yourself flush.

Some argue, "oh, the Social Security surplus might as well be treated as general revenue - no one expects the government to pay that back." Wrong. Even if you ignore the moral ugliness of treating trust funds like free piggy banks, there are those government bonds I mentioned above, which are being traded globally. If the US Government defaults on those bonds and declares debt incurred by borrowing from the Social Security surplus null and void, it would trigger a collapse of the bond market and destroy the dollar - almost certainly leading to a global market crash.

Social Security surplus is about $200 billion, so tack that on to whatever number Bush ends up with (and every deficit for the last few years). We’re in a lot more red ink than you might think.