Our problem, which he rightly points out, is that we did fail in Iraq, and we are failing in Afghanistan. The house-slave comment is just a simple tactic that serves two purposes. It says to other fundamentalists in the world: "he's not like you even though he has a similar skin color," and it is an attempt to set himself up as a future victim of oppression. He would prefer to elicit an over the top response.

Where he is correct, is that former administrations have brought death, greed, destruction, political manipulation to "Muslim" lands. Our imperialist corruption has still not been addressed. We have still not dealt with the issues that get us to our current place with the fundamentalist Muslim world. If we continue to frame our enemy as "evil" "terrorists," how will we ever sit down and negotiate and end to hostilities? We even gave Japan and the Nazis a chance to negotiate, and they took more American lives and treasure than Al Qaida ever will.

Because he is correct, we will not be able to "defeat" him and his followers. Until we are on the right side of these issues, we are playing a very weak hand. The easiest way to de-fang your insurgent enemy is to transition them from a military to a government. They should invite the fundamentalist Jihadis to a sit down. That would force them to either form a committee with grievances, or hide in a cave. Once a committee, well... let's just say they'll suddenly have their own 'Joe Liebermans' to deal with. Sure they'll come back with: "We won't sit down until all of our conditions are met," reply. But we'll counter with: "That is what the negotiations are about. Let's just sit down and talk this out with no pre-conditions." Some, seeking power or prestige, will come to the table. Others will hide and fume. Deals will be struck with more moderate elements. The enemy will have been divided, with the hard core elements ostracized.

"Well hunt down our enemies," is not a competent foreign policy, nor is it a good military strategy.

It should be noted that I am the first to use 'Joe Lieberman' as a term for a 'problematic turncoat that you can't get rid of.' Hopefully it will catch on and find its way in to our lexicon.

Ted forgot to hook one end of the tube to the Diebold Republican vote generating McFidgettywizzle.

"I'm getting angry, you won't like me when I get angry!" He shouts to the heavens... just before he realizes he wasn't growing big and green, and was in fact a flaccid, broken little old man. Concluding he wields no power anymore, he resigns himself to spending the end of his days avoiding the bitter stare of his battle-axe wife.

Point of the acenrockland's letter = Missed.

It would have been nice not to let the Army know what documents you already had, that way they'd be afraid to commit to their story. In any event, the truth will out. People are lazy, they get others involved in their cover ups. Hopefully a Senator or two will get involved. It is a really tough decision to be a whistle blower in the military. Really tough.

I'm not sure why the military is opposed to the admission of friendly fire incidents. Perhaps it is because they tend to stop the careers of the officers involved. My friend's dad was involved in a friendly fire incident at a training base. He was the colonel in charge of the exercise. His career stopped in its tracks after that and was never promoted again.

Jesse, that closet burner. He makes references to the weed smell, comparisons to Grateful Dead concerts and Amsterdam. You talk the talk, you walk the walk. He probably burned it down with the kids and expensed it to Bill. Check out his grin during the interviews and post interview with Bill. Baked on the chronic.

She basically voted with Bush on domestic spying, torture, authorization to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Patriot Acts I and II. Along with Joe Lieberman she introduced the Family Entertainment protection act (saving us all from dirty video games.) She voted in favor of naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a "terrorist organization," when Bush was spoiling for a fight with them. She might as well have been a Republican for the last 7 years.

She abdicated her responsibility to put the wars up for a healthy debate, she abdicated her responsibility to be a check on the over reaching power of the Executive branch. She is not the right choice.

If they turn their backs on evangelicals, how will the methamphetamine fueled, leather clad, rough homosexual love lobby be represented in our government?

"The answer is not necessarily that his campaign rhetoric was false or insincere, but that he developed respect for her over the difficult months of that harsh contest -- and came to believe that she would be as formidable at his side as she was in his face."

Or maybe his campaign rhetoric was just false and insincere.

Where do you get off framing people who want to hold her accountable for her actions in government for the last 7 years as "Clinton haters." Is that like being a "terrorist hugger?" Please. I'm adverse to her being the secretary of state because she voted along with the neo-cons on everything from the patriot acts, to the 2 wars, to listing Iranian Guard as terrorists. I don't hate her. I'd just prefer she'd stay a Senator and be accountable for her previous votes.

Tis a gift to be simple.

Tis a gift to cost $29,000 per year for the older one and $24,000 a year for the younger one.