Huckabee told reporters back in October that if there's a conflict between science and what he believes of God, he'll stick with God because science changes and God doesn't.

There's no link to a quote by Huckabee, so I'll have to take your word for it that he said this. If so, he's clearly got his head up his ass.

The powers attributed to God change with each scientific discovery. It used to be, God caused the sun and the rain and the seasons. Now we know things about our yearly path around the sun, and precipitation levels and high and low pressure zones. It used to be, God created Eve out of Adam's rib, and of course there are a few challenged people who still buy this. However, for most people, humans were not created this way, but through evolution.

Huckabee has zero chance of becoming president. If the Repubs nominate somebody like this, the general electorate will find him ridiculous.

Then again, you could consider a real expert on the subject...

So, our head law enforcement official is hostile to the concept of the rule of law. Who knew??

Now, if you want to consider a real expert on the war on terror, maybe I can link to a screed by bin Laden, and you can modify your views per his.

Or, we can simply accept that like assholes, everyone has an opinion. Some opinions are better than others. Some opinions comport themselves to general concepts of legality and civilized life, and others don't. In that respect, bin Laden and our attorney general are in the same camp.

Instead of adopting the same, tired old rhetoric, why not view strength as the ability to adhere to the rigorous code of ethics and morals on which we (the U.S.) were established.

BushCo has absolutely no interest in this kind of strength. They are in the process of setting up an autocratic regime, where ethics and morals are only found in seasonal Christmas shows.

Hopefully the next administration will return to pursuing the more traditional strength that America has shown throughout most of its history.

A very thoughtful post. Let me give my 2 cents.

But I would appreciate some common sense...It makes no sense to me that George W. and company would deliberately try to sabotage our country. Wrong-headed as I believe he is, isn't it possible that he believes what he is doing is a good thing?

I believe Bush thinks he's doing what's best for the country. In that way, he's no different from any other despot including Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, etc. They also believed what they were doing was best for the country.

However, what Bush is doing is not best for the country, and on some level he understands that also. This is why he must lie so relentlessly. If his policies could be considered acceptable to most civilized people, he would be able to articulate them clearly, and defend them against challenges, rather than lying and pretending his policies are something other than what they are. For example, if he really believed that letting the NSA spy on Americans without a warrant was for the best of the country, he wouldn't have lied and said that no such spying is occurring.

What Bush believes is best for the country is the product of a powerful delusion. The perceived potential benefits to himself as a result of his policies are so compelling (immortalized as a War President like Roosevelt, making massive bucks as a paid speaker, etc), that it's enabled him to turn a blind eye to the destructive consequences of those same policies. We all fall under similar delusions from time to time. (If I run this red light, I can get to the shops earlier, and that will help me so much that I will ignore the possibility that I might crash into someone in the process.)

That's Bush. He's a simpleton who stupidly believes he's doing a good thing. That's not Cheney or the others, who I do believe have completely embraced their own perception of "evil" as a way to proceed through life in what they must see as a very sick world. They see themselves as the cure. Too bad "final solution" was already taken as a name for this cure.

You mean like Sandy Burger getting a $10,000 fine and accept a three-year suspension of his national security clearance for stealing secret documents?

Yes. That judgment against Berger sounds pretty small, and it was, but at least it was a nod towards the rule of law. Now, if you take Berger's sentence, and subtract the fine and the suspension, what you have left is the consequences that the Bush Admin faces for its lawbreaking. (Oh, that's right, Libby had to pay a fine too. I guess treason is a tough rap to beat, until the president pardons you.)

Anyhow, Anonymouse, your indignation about Berger's sentence betrays your bias. You find Berger's sentence too lenient, but would cry bloody murder if a republican faced any consequences. Right?

We call that a double standard. Good luck with that.

Hummm...and yet I note you fail to argue my point.

That's because you didn't make a point.

You mentioned Sandy Berger, apparently as an example of Democratic lawbreaking. However, while Berger's sentence sounds lenient (there are various opinions on this, based on precedent), at least he got a sentence. Will Rove and Bolten? Not likely. Therefore, I think you ended up supporting the opposite point than the one you were after.

But that's my supposition, as you didn't actually state a point. If you ever had one, maybe now's the time to make it.