You got a jab in at a Clinton, but you forgot to mention that Sandy Berger stuffed some papers in his pants!

I'm surprised you did because the Sandy Berger thing is really equivalent to the non-torture at Abu Ghraib and the America hating terrorist helping story the Times did on NSA snooping/listening in on terrorists.

What are the new talking points on Plame's claim that she was working to thwart nuclear proliferation in Iran? The bitch outed herself? Who cares about nukes in Iran, bomb them anyway? You're usually pretty good with coming out with the talking points almost immediately after Rush mainlines them into what's left of your brain -- so please share.

Hugs & kisses.

A fascinating (and very scary) article via antiwar.com today detailing Iran's attempt to make peace with us and Cheney/Addington/Abrams/Hadley's successful attempts to quash peace talks and ramp us up for war. Truly astounding and sickening:

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/iranbriefing1107

Thanks to bystander for the Kaplan link.

Thanks for a clear, cogent analysis. Unfortunately, the Cheney crew seem to have no problem with shifting and clashing rationals. As someone (bystander?) said, they just throw stuff out there and see what sticks.

And extra special double thanks because you got The Major to come out of retirement! Twice!! We've missed ya, Maj!

For some background on diplomatic efforts with Iran that have been intentionally kyboshed by Cheney and The Crazies, see this interesting Esquire article:

http://www.esquire.com/print-this/iranbriefing1107

The Iraq body count is nowhere near 1M - more like 30-70K. Everyone knows the inflated body counts are just propaganda from leftist defeatists.

And besides, Saddam killed more (than 30-70K) and he had rape and torture rooms. Unlike us.

Do you want to condemn the Iraqi people to hell that was Saddam?

Thanks for a passionate yet clear-eyed article, Chris. Have you been reading Arthur Silber?

There was supposed to have been an /Shooter after that stuff.

I thought I'd pop in with the RW talking points so Shooter doesn't have to.

Dodd may be in a position to fall on his sword, but Clinton and Obama may be very smart in not antagonizing the big telecom giants. Just as with the media giants (and there is overlap), their power to aid or interfere with a campaign is now too large to be ignored.

-- Jim

In the grey pragmatic world inside the Beltway, that may be the case. But I'm looking for some sunshine on a golden hill, dammit. I'm sick of pygmies, sick of "good Germans", sick of Organization Men (a 50s reference, I date myself), sick of the Men (and Women) in the Grey Flannel Suit (another 50s reference). Pragmatism might be something of a relief after Capt. Insanus (aka George W. Bush), but personally, I'd prefer some leadership, some integrity, and some principals, combined with a great deal of sanity.

Clinton's weasely triangulation doesn't surprise me, but I did have more hope for Obama. I wanted him to be a breath of fresh air, but it's becoming obvious that wishing won't make it so.

Shooter - This is why Stark had to apologize. If he didn't then this kind of language would be next on the floor of the House of Representatives, as part of the official record. Our Representatives reflect their constituents.

Shooter, here's a game show activity for you:

Door #1) Stark said some passionate things about George Bush and his war. Some people considered these things insulting and demanded Stark apologize. He did.

Door #2) George W. Bush lied about Saddam and Iraq and started a war based on bullcrap. Thousands of Americans have been killed, more thousands have been maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died, millions of Iraqis are refugees, and billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars have been wasted. George Bush has never apologized for any of this and never will.

Let's see now, which door has the yuckiest action behind it? Oh right, calling the president Mr. Poopypants. Simply horrible. Much worse than blowing up people for nothing.

The only thing Stark did wrong was to apologize. He should have stuck by his guns and told Pelosi & Co. to go Cheney themselves.

Andrew Sullivan linked to it, too. I had heard rumors about this earlier, but didn't really take in the enormity of what they want to do. Really, as far as I can tell, the only difference between the U.S. and Nazi Germany is that we don't (yet) have camps for ethnic cleansing.

Is this the "freedom" they're always yammering on about? You know, that stuff that isn't "free"?

Crikey.

Why are the Dems (as well as the Repubs) supporting these unlawful acts? Because they don't really care. I think the bottom line is that whatever civics lessons these men and women had in K-12 have been long forgotten. Most of them have no conscious principles, most of them don't really believe in anything anymore (if they ever did), most of them would probably be hard pressed to name the Bill of Rights and are woefully deficient in understanding the Constitution, let alone the foundational documents and ideas of the U.S. (and Western democracy). In short, they are pretty much pygmies. So it is not surprising, given a "difficult" position (Soft on Terror!), the fact that their constituents probably won't abandon them entirely (will many Dem voters switch and vote Repub? no), plus the lovely money coming to them from the various lobbies, that they prefer to keep their heads down and vote with the herd.

WT -- I agree with you on nablz. Is Mona sure that a spoofer hasn't taken over the screen name? This guy is just too preposterous.