You are wrong:

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

Non-combat injuries are not reported. Non-combat deaths are (those that are in-theater).

And what happens to his plan if a multi-national peacekeeping force doesn't materialize? His plan would only be slightly less practical if he claimed we were going to spread pixie-dust across the whole country that will make everyone get along with each other and stop killing each other.

Any idea on the efficiency of these things compared to direct charging? With something like this built-in, it could at least be handy for a PDA or cell phone.

You've got your facts wrong.

The Democrats filibustered plenty of bills (Social Security Reform? Drilling in the Arctic?) in the four years they were in the minority. It was over the nomination of a few judges that Republicans threatened to take away the filibuster power and then for nominations *only*. Of course, that was what was most agitating them at the time, but they claimed to be able to do it by invoking, by majority only, a new constitutional interpretation that said approval of nominees only required 51 votes.

The "nuclear" part of this would have been the Democrats' response to this which would be to hang together and filibuster everything else, which is why it never happened.

The reason the Senate wasn't able to block everything is that Republicans only needed to convince 8-9 Democrats to come over to their side and there were a number of people like Leiberman, the Nelsons (FL and NE). On the otherhand, the Dems need to get Leiberman and 16 Republicans to cross the aisle and vote against Bush to accomplish something he doesn't want to do. A much higher bar.

There is an on-going investigation.

Cohen doesn't say the "real problem" with Bush is that he's too liberal. In fact, if you could read any addressing of the "real problem" with Bush into his article it's incompetence.

It is a good point, but one made over and over, that Bush is not a true conservative.

Just like with Bolton, I don't think the question is "Who would be best for our policy?" or even "Who is loyal to me?" as much as it is "Who could I appoint who would be the biggest poke in the eye to these internationalist bastards?"

Frist is a pretty good choice in that case.

An earlier poster had it part right. Clinton's impeachment is part of the reason no one is really talking about impeaching Bush. In ordinary circumstances I would be happy to see Bush impeached---and removed. But following after Clinton, such an action would be precedent setting and one could fear a future where any president facing a HoR of the opposite party would be impeached on any trumped up grounds.

In the same way, I'm worried that the next president, Republican or Democrat, will adopt Bush's theory of unlimited executive power and use of government to advance a single party's agenda. I'm as worried about that as I am about Bush's current flaunting of the law. If I knew everything would go back to the way it should be if a democrat (small D) is elected in 18 months, I wouldn't worry nearly as much.

The only way Bush is going anywhere is if Republicans champion the cause.

I didn't read it all that carefully, but I didn't detect any suggestion in Franklin's prayer that God hated the Germans and would lead American's to a righteous slaughter of her enemies. And I certainly didn't see Franklin saying "Blow them all away in the name of the Lord, Amen"

Sorry.

"blow them [terrorists] all away in the name of the Lord."

http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2518

If he meets *that* Lord, boy is he in trouble.

"blow them [terrorists] all away in the name of the Lord."

http://www.baptiststandard.com/postnuke/index.php?module=htmlpages&func=display&pid=2518

If he meets *that* Lord, boy is he in trouble.

"It's been pretty well established that Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague."

-- Dick Cheney

Why, oh why, do we have to keep hearing about how things were going great in Iraq before the Samarra Mosque bombing? Why does no reporter call them on this? Bush said the same thing during his "interview" with Charlie Rose a couple of days ago.

That bombing was just a marker on the downward spiral that has been Iraq. Things did not change direction then, just accelerated downward.

Except that I said no such thing. My original points were:

a) that Garrison's explanation of what Calvinists believe was wildly off the mark of what they actually believe and how they let those beliefs influence their lives.

b) the inference (which I think he made) that Calvinism as a theology/religion somehow supports Bushism is mistaken.

Nancerich,

You should probably stop making assumptions about who I am or what I believe.

when there has been virtually no organized effort by mainstream churches to oppose the actions of the right

Exactly. Mainstream religion, on the congregation level and above, pretty much stays out of politics. Their members do not. Isn't that what we all want?

While Mr. Keillor does a nice job of associating Bush with an extreme stereotype of Calvinism, he's lacking on "nuance." Just like our president. Although I must say I am impressed that he knows what TULIP stands for.

First, Calvinists have not typically used their theology as an excuse to do whatever they want. Quite the contrary, really.

Second, it should be pointed out that it is the "thank-you-Jesus-for-making-me-beautiful ... megachurches" who buy into this whole nonsense of Bush being appointed by God. The churches with a Calvinist background, Presbyterians (Scottish) and Reformed (Dutch) are opposed to many of this president's policies and rhetoric. From what I can tell the Presbyterians more-so, but neither group would be considered "loyal Bushies."

So, this smear on Calvinists is no more relevant than using a "Bush on a Crusade" mantra to smear modern day Catholics.