Slackie Onassis said up above: ' I'm reminded of that classic picture of the SVN guy shooting the suspected NVN sympathizer in the head on the street in the Vietnam War.'

The person being executed in that iconic photo was a VC Captain, according to post-war Vietnamese sources. Doesn't make it any more right, the summary execution.

Yellow Dog up above has a post that sums it up pretty well for me. Hope he gets a star!

Jeffrey P. Harrison stated in a post: 'The League of Nations failed to constrain Nazi Germany from attacking Czechoslovakia and Austria.'

While I would agree with your use of the word 'attacking' in characterizing what happened to Czechoslovakia, I must say I disagree with its use when applied to Austria.

IMO, Austria voluntarily merged with Nazi Germany. The millions who came out to seig heil as Hitler drove thru Vienna sure gave a convincing display of nazi ardor (almost like you'd see if Pres. POS visited the College Republican convention).

Terry Gilliam. I think this guy has titled his book to try & con people who don't pay attention into thinking he's one of the old Pythons writing a comedy book.

Boy, will they be surprised.

Phil up above said: 'Despite Rose repeatedly conning his fans into believing he was the aggrieved part, in the end, the Dowd Report has proven to be correct in every aspect of the sordid affair. Pete Rose is the blackest mark in the history of the Cincinnati franchise. And this Reds' fan wishes he would drink a Super Grande-sized cup of STFU and go the Hell away.'

Agreed, Phil. I was a big Pete fan when I was a kid, but now I have a much better understanding of him & he is just a lying, maniacially egotistical punk.

He did, however, play the game with apparently enthusiatic abandon back in the 70s.

I served at a USAF base that flew Phantoms back in the 80s. Got to be the loudest airplane I've ever heard. One pilot told me that the Phantom was a monument to the theory that even a brick will fly if you put big enough engines on it.

Lost a couple of pilots in them due (partially) to the fact that when it loses power, it returns to the glide properties of a brick & you must eject ASAP.

Liked the article.

I am a Obama supporter. I have sent him money & will again. I sincerely hope he is our nominee. However, if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination, I will support & vote for her.

That said, I will vote for whoever has a 'D' after their name (Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Kucinich, the crazy guy from Alaska, etc.). To do otherwise in 2008 is akin to 'cutting off one's nose to spite their face' (as my mother would say).

I urge those whose posts I have read saying they would not vote for Mrs. Clinton to reconsider. I can assure you that on her worst day, Hillary is way, way more competent & honest than any of the Republican nominees. Let's be smart in 2008, our nation can't afford us to be petty.

I heartily agree with my fellow posters that Bush will never give an honest and/or coherent answer to any of the excellent & pointed questions I read in the article & comments.

That doesn't mean those questions shouldn't be asked (of Snow or any other of the President's lackeys (or Bush himself whenever he deigns to come out of his bunker)) every day to keep it fresh in the public's mind what a bunch of crooks we have in the white house.

Maybe, repeatedly hearing these questions might cause one of them to lose their cool & blurt out something incriminating (doubt it, but it's worth a try).

I think Mr. Gerson has written that op-ed in hopes that it causes more of the Protestant-wacko-fenian-hating members of the GOP primary voting establishment to consider Mr. Guiliani.

To me, it's saying 'look at the ways he disagrees with the pope, and in many of those ways (torture, death penalty, etc), he is right (heh) in line with our views'. 'Our' being the people I labeled in para 1.

Now, on Mr. Guiliani's abortion/stem-cell views (if Mr. Gerson is to be believed), those are definitely not the views of the 'targeted' portion of the GOP electorate I mentioned in para 1. I guess he had to include that in there to give the article a veneer of objectivity, IMO.

Am I wrong when I say that most of the examples Mr. Gerson uses to illustrate that Mr. Guiliani deviates from Catholic teaching seem to be issues where Mr. Guiliani's position is more in line with the views of the stereotypical GW-is-Gods-Avatar-Southern-Baptist-South-Carolinian?

IMO, in the GOP presidential primary, evangelicals are swing voters for/against Mr. Guiliani & GOP Catholics are not (if he doesn't have most of them already, he's toast).

I'm sure somone has already mentioned this, but Micheal Harold said: 'We are still in every other place we ever invaded and/or occupied, even those countries that we liberated after WWII, countries that are now our allies.'

I understand what you were saying, and this won't change the jist of your comments, but France (under DeGaulle) sent us packing back in the 60s.

I once lived at Chateau Roux AFB many years ago.

Paul, I was just going to post about how much of a dipshit 'Pocoroba' is (the last post sent me over the edge), but you did it in a much more elegant way than I (admirably, with much less cursing).

Thanks!

I'm prety sure that everyone in another government who gets one of our 'do as I counsel, not as you see me do every day' missives just busts a gut laughing at the chutzpah displayed in the exerpts Glenn posted.

I myself (when I can stand watching them) wonder how they keep a straight face (Bush, Snow, other flunkies, etc.) when they get up there & read some of their pronouncements. They must practice.