I want to know what "Victory in Iraq" means. As I see it, that is the key to this debate.

Does it mean pretend elections? Does it mean a chicken in every pot? Does it mean the utter destruction of the Mahdi Army? Does it mean the utter destruction of the nation of Iraq?

The BCF doesn't have a definition for this. When they talk about "coming home defeated," someone need to press them on the details of what would result in "coming home victorious." Then the hollowness of their position would be evident.

It's all because the Main Stream Media is so unabashedly Liberal!

LeCastor wrote:

Because if you are forced to sleep with your teacher for a good grade, that's not rape. You consented to the act itself.

As a male teacher, I call that rape.

Not only that, there is the inherent assumption that a superior officer is giving the female soldier an option. That is contrary to the very structure of military command. Officers have the choice of obeying an order or resigning their commission. But enlisted soldiers have no option. That is why the UCMJ defines such situations as rape by statute.

So, I am forced to say, you totally blew that call.

That is the legal definition.

So, the chlorine truck bomb killed 27 people. Brutal, shameful, senseless, yes. But mass destruction? Not at all.

The characterization of WMD is part and parcel of the lies the pro-war faction is constantly using. Would chlorine gas be a horrible way to die? Definitely. But calling this attack a WMD is an absolute and utter lie.

The US has many different kinds of weapons that kill far more than 27 people at a time. If this argument is taken to its logical conclusion, the US military has used far more WMDs in Iraq than the "enemy" has. But anyone saying that would be branded a traitor by these same shrill liars.

This won't make any difference. The people who have the largest effect on climate change are also the people who have the largest economic stake in the status quo. As was previously stated, the short term will always excrete all over the long term.

As for the estimate itself, it will be quite conservative. Any prediction of dire change will be shouted down, regardless of the science behind it. So the most extreme estimates will not be included, and whatever impact the report may have will be watered down.

Even the best case scenario, a serious warning of serious consequences, would do little. And we won't get that.

I guess it will give us something to snicker at 25 years from now.

The only way Imus will ever stop the verbal abuse is to boycott his sponsors. And people in the US are far too lazy to do that. Especially if it were somewhere they could get something cheap.

So, it's all about the money, and the money won't be threatened.

There you go.

Ruben Bolling continually nails Bush like no one else. The ill-conceived Iraq War wrapped up with a ribbon.

Why do those other kids keep doing what Li'l George says?

I think kids don't get inspired by figures like that...

Too right King. I teach high school to African-American children, and even for those who wear the throwback Negro League baseball jerseys, Jackie Robinson is just a name from history. He is anything but an inspriration.

I have read the trilogy at least 30 times. I have read The Silmarillion three times. I got up and walked out on the first movie, at the point where Gandalf was made out to be a complete and utter fool, unlike Tolkien's portrayal. I have only seen a few cringe-worthy scenes from the second movie.

(Yes, I understand that many LotR fans love the movies. But I am a Tolkien fan, and the movies were not, in my not-so-humble opinion, faithful to Tolkien's vision.)

Yes, I am quite the Tolkien geek.

This book seems very cool, and I will be on the lookout for it.

Is it OK to criticize the president again?

No, it isn't. We have to wait until he starts another unjust and unjustifiable war first.

Look out Iran!

Based on my studies of the other writings of the men who wrote the US Constitution, the intent behind the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms was to allow citizens to protect themselves from government tyrrany. The hidden corollary to this is the fact that hand guns are all but worthless for this.

Yes, it is true that there have been multiple shooting incidents using rifles and shotguns. But it would have been very difficult for the perpetrator to have created this tragedy with weapons he couldn't conceal.

To quote a song from the 70s, Hand guns are made for killin'. Ain't no good for nothin' else. It is possible to maintain the spirit of the 2nd Amendment without promoting attitudes and behaviors that lead to these kinds of massive tragedies.

If students are fearful of having their mental competency judged by their writing, they will stifle themselves. If teachers fail to make such judgments it may result in another massacre.

There is no good answer.

You have to believe that the Bush administration would choose the "There were no WMD" lie over the "There were WMD, but the evil liberals caused them to be stolen by Syria" lie.

After all, the story requires an administration lie. Can anyone believe they would choose a lie that leaves them responsible for an unjustifiable war over a lie that justifies their actions?

A couple of people have offered dictionary definitions of treason in response to DeLay's accusation. The definition that matters is the definition in the Constitution. The one that talks about "aid and comfort" to enemies.

By the defintion of "aid and comfort" that DeLay appears to be using, the only acceptable reaction to the Iraq folly is mindless cheerleading. It seems that reality has no merit.