A weak defense of Ephialtes.

Could it be that Carmina is Ann Coulter's pseudonym? The rhetoric is the regurgitation of the same fantasies, nightmares, illusions, canards, and myths wrapped in feigned self righteousness.

Surely, there is amply anger and justifiable so. To equate the Clinton Administration to that of W. Bush is preposterous. The emotion is anger. Intellectually it is regret.

The Neocons and the Radical Right wing Zionist Christians are hard at work revising history.

Go back and read James Risen's article of November 6, 2002, "Iraq said to Have Tried to Reach a Last-Minute Deal to Avert War.

Two quotes, hopefully not out of context: "..that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search."

"...the officials told him they did not want to pursue this channel, and they indicated they had already engaged in separate contacts with Bag dad. Mr. Perle said, "The message wad, 'Tell them that we will see them in Bag dad.'?

Who are the Thees? Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, Addington, Perle, Cheney, Albert Gonzales, Jim Haynes, Timothy Flanigan, John Yoo, C. Rice and Chairman of the War Department, Richard Meyers.

You ignore the time frame and a very important point.

(1) The time frame of Nov. 6, 2002 and the Bush government chose a person without authority or jurisdiction (Perle) to negotiate through a 'back-channel' of communication with the Iraqi government the chance to prevent a war of choice.

(2) Not UN Inspectors, the American Army in Iraq to learn the truth.

It is amazing that this crazy radio talk show bloviater incites any comment from the public.

He is sick and needs therapy. Please don't take advantage of his lack of mental acuity.

"...he has created a semi-tongue-in-cheek persona for entertainment's sake, a self-aware self-parody, the original Stephen Colbert."

I believe only a relative could be so dismissive of the fantastic harm he has done to nation with the foregoing explanation of who he is and what he does.

The response from the right to a very well written satirical essay was (is) predictable: perniciousness unbridled; revision of history; void of empirical evidence; utter disregard for truth and honesty and a carefully honed penchant to defend the indefensible.

The answer to the first sentence of your post is: Yes!

Perhaps there are other major character flaws that should be defined to give us more insight into what these authors are all about. Frankly, we know too much about them already.

For the adolescents out there that do not understand the tragedy and comedy of satire, read the post!

Read Kerianfree!

As a grammarian, you fall a little bit short of credible!

Forgive me. I thought your post was a satire. It was beyond my imagination to think you were serious.