So if you take out 130,000 troops if we banish the privateers - given the level of violence today, it would only get much much much much worse. So - you have two choices; accept that heightened level of violence, or, backfill those missing 130,000 privateers with GI's.

This questioning assumes that our military presence (either by GIs or contractors) is doing anything to prevent the violence from getting much, much, much, much worse. It's not. It is only postponing that moment. Whether that moment actually arrives depends on the Iraqis, and has absolutely nothing to do with how many troops we keep in the country for how many decades.

Or - you just toss the keys over your shoulder and leave tomorrow and let the Iraqis and the carbomb industry sort it out.

This scenario is inevitable. Eventually, the Americans will do exactly that. That is the fate of every invasion and occupation: either start moving your citizens into the occupied country and start posting them to positions of power (see Tibet, for example), or eventually leave.

The real question is the one I posed in my last post, which you felt compelled to ignore: how much do you want to abandon the US character of benevolence and its moral authority in pursuit of futile objectives? The Republican answer: "what benevolence and moral authority? Those won't make me rich!" The answer from the rest of the world: "Get the troops out. Now."

We're clearly trapped into either watching it all burn to the ground or bugging out ASAP. Either one leaves the Iraqis behind kill each other until a new Tyrant arises.

Yes, that was the deal your president signed us up for. Happy? Sure, BushCo assumed it would be up to them to install the new tyrant, but it doesn't look like it's going to go that way.

If there were any justice, the GOP would remain out of power for a generation for this kind of debacle.

In watching Rush misrepresent every fact at his disposal, I realize that truth no longer has a place in American political debate. Truth is no more relevant than who the father of Anna Nicole Smith's daughter is.

Listen to Rush: He really comes off as if he believes his own lies, despite the fact that he knows they are lies. That right there is Rush's talent: speaking from conviction. At the end of the day, the notion that Media Matters and Jack Reid are conducting a character assassination on Rush, based on lies, is an absolute fact to Rush's millions of listeners. There is nothing, at this point, that could dismantle that falsehood in the minds of Rush's profoundly stupid audience that makes up such a sadly large portion of Americans.

And this is just one moment of Rush's show. No doubt he's filling all those other moments with equally corrosive lies that will never be corrected. This is long-term damage, folks, from which I can never see this country recovering.

No...but if he had lied under oath (committed perjury) the way President Clinton had, there would be no discussion of why he wasn't impeached.

Let's leave for a moment the question of whether or not Clinton was actually convicted of perjury, and simply focus on the notion that lying under oath is a valid reason for impeachment.

Bush has lied to Congress on many, many occasions. With a few minutes on Google, I can provide many examples, so just think what an investigative panel with the power of subpoena could do! When addressing Congress, the oath is implied, and lying during such addresses constitutes contempt of Congress, and is an impeachable offense.

Therefore, Brave brave Sir Anonymouse, by your own standards Bush should be impeached.

Now dance for us all, would you?

"And, since when did 30% equal a majority?" Probably about the same time 56 elected senators became a mandate to get us out of Iraq...and strangely enough, it has failed to do so. Sort of makes you wonder if it WAS a mandate, doesn't it?

No wonder they can't balance a budget! This one thinks 30% = 56%.

I can help you out without use of a calculator. 30% is never a majority. And the 56% was an elected mandate to get us out of Iraq, as opinion polls show. That has nothing to do with the Democrats' inability to actually end the war, an effort that has been hamstrung by the Republicans every step of the way. That, and the Democrats playing along with this Republican game, is why the electoral mandate has not resulted in an end to the Iraq war.