Gary, I think, flatters Bush by discussing this arms deal in terms of geopolitics. The notion that Bush, by favoring one country over another in these matters, is deftly pulling levers, shifting balances of power, creating and strengthening alliances, etc. makes Bush look like a strategic thinker.

But we all know nothing could be further from the truth. The reach of Bush's mind simply doesn't encompass such considerations. This deal, this "military aid" is nothing more than the repatriation of $60 or $70 billion in oil money going straight into the pockets of Big American Arms Manufacturers. Sure, the Saudis want jets, but if Bush's pals in the MIC weren't making money out of the deal, Bush wouldn't bother to get his head out of the brush in Crawford long enough to listen to their request.

I, too, refer to the whole band of crooks and liars in this administration as "Bush." I thought it was kind of a given that Bush is a puppet, just as Reagan was, for powerful interests -- and that's why I brought up the notion that arms-for-Arabs isn't so much about delicate adjustments to the balance of power in a far-off place full of little brown people as about enriching the likes of Halliburton, GE, Boeing, General Dynamics, etc. Did you agree in no way about the possibility that this is about enriching Bush and Company's friends?

Is anybody surprised? Was there ever any doubt about who would be writing the report? How a man like Petraeus, who lives in a world where honor is (should be?) of primary importance, can hand his balls over to hacks in civilian government, is beyond me.

The situation is looking just too much like the prelude to our “shock and awe” campaign in Iraq.

For my money, it's looking too much like what must have preceded the events in "1984," i.e. when the permanent war between Oceania and Eurasia was started.

The administration ran the idea of not having Petraeus testify in public up the flagpole to see what the reaction would be and whence the reaction came. They saw, they heard, and they retracted the idea. If people had shrugged it off, or if the proposal had been lost behind a more exciting story, they'd have gone ahead with it, protected by "This is what we told you we were going to do." They pull this all the time. It's part of Karl Rove's legacy.

I have a 19-year-old son, a beautiful, smart boy who hasn't found himself yet. He has liked, to the best of my ability to discern, every drug he's tried so far. Pot, 'shrooms, X. One of these days, someone's going to chop him a line of this shit and...it scares me so much.

And what pisses me off is that, should my wonderful child be bitten by this horrible snake, he will always and always find it easier to get more meth than to find a government-paid facility whose purpose is to help him put the addiction behind him. This is what the doctrine of interdiction has brought us.

Legalize drugs and put War on Drugs billions into rehab and education!!

Obviously, the logic, the explanations, the so-called reasons, the rationales, the "evidence," it was all crap. But they invaded Iraq. Why? Knowing -- or at least, having known -- that it would be a quagmire, they did it. Is anyone investigating the possibility that this outcome is EXACTLY what they expected and wanted? That maybe it was the gateway to war with Iran, the ultimate Oceania v. Eurasia scenario desired by the Military-Industrial Complex? Or something else, but that this was all ON PURPOSE?

When people do things that don't make sense to you, it's a good idea to question the assumptions and thought-processes you are imputing to them.

You make a lot of sense. I like an explanation that doesn't have as its primary assumption that they're all idiots.

All you have to look at is that walk Bush affects, backs of hands turned forward ape-like, arms swinging slightly to the side as if to balance the weight of huge testicles.

What a pansy. (Kids, stay off the phone; I might be hearing from Dana Perino)

Slept on your ideas, and have a couple of notes. First, what president ever did NOT want cheaper oil? Of course, on the other hand, you're only president for eight years. Basking for the rest of your life in the gratitude of those you've made rich, and damn the legacy, might be just the scenario for BushCheney.

Second, do the Saudis really fear reform in Iran? Do they prefer a government run by militant Shia mullahs? I kinda tend to think not.

It's a tough one. Flip-flopping between thinking they're just a bunch of idiots who thought they could create an American hegemon in the Middle East and got it wrong and are too stubborn to admit it, and thinking there's more afoot here than meets the eye (but we know it's scary and not good) is wearing out me poor old brain.

Much of the Foreign Policy Community is funded by heavily politicized and pro-war sources, and the Community, in turn, promotes the agenda of its funders.

This puts me in mind of the bloated and red-nosed alumni who fund their alma mater's football team and go to games crying, "Kill 'em, Kill 'em, Go Big Red!"

Let's make a BIG change, to something more like the parliamentary system. Impeachment brings on a new election. (Dreaming, dreaming...)