Who would spend a billion dollars to get a 4-year job paying $400000?

lots of comments and I didn't read them all; maybe somebody noted that O'Hanlon was apparently forced -- forced, I tell you, to actually go to Iraq and come up with some headline-grabber, when his "Let's Partition Iraq" d&p show fell flat.

But that's the good news -- his "soft partition" proposal would probably be prosecuted as a war crime were it implemented. He called for walls thru and around Baghdad, dividing even the central city (I've heard that before but can't think of where??? Oh, yea, Palestine.), with guard stations and checkpoints everywhere. People would not be "forced" to leave their homes to move to the region designated for them, they would be "encouraged" to do so by assistance in selling their homes (my guess is they'd hire some Mexican painters to brighten up those walls (the ones still standing), and advise on how to arrange shoes in the closet to make it look less cluttered.) O'Hanlon would set up jobs for the movees -- yeah, they'd be dip-s**t jobs as ditch-diggers or doormen, O'Hanlon concedes, but hey, life is tough. The movees would STILL be grateful to the have the great opportunity!!! for a fresh new start!!! in a new place!!!

O Hanlon is one sick dude. How did it happen that the US could embrace, all at the same time, an O Hanlon, a Hannity, a Limbaugh, a Cheney, a Muravchick and Lieberman and Wm Rusher??

I'm just this second listening to Liulevicius's "Utopia & Terror" discussion of "Population Transfers," a precedent traced to Greece & Turkey and befalling people AFTER wars were won/lost, in punishment of opposition to perceived unfair treaties.

unless your boss never, but never looks over your shoulder, who has time to get thru all the twists and turns of this conversation?

I thought reporting was about getting the facts to people. Ya mighta done a better job of editing the briar patch of this conversation.

i'd really like to know why lieverman thinks he is right on Iraq.

One more reality that makes the US/Israeli demonization campaign against Iran is the problem of addiction and PTSD among young Iranian veterans of the Iran-Iraq war. These men have not yet readjusted from the last war fought on Iranian soil at the insistance of US interests.

That a generation of US men and women will struggle for the rest of their lives is tragic.

That we, voters/citizens allow our government to set in place policies that we HAVE to know are going to produce this outcome is obscenely immoral. We have an obligation to do what is in our power to change the policies and the government, as well as to help all the victims of American policy.

Atheists might be annoyed that all those folks are invaded the paradise they found first.

And if that doesn't annoy you enough, Have you ever considered the possibility that Hitler's lobbyist hasn't yet unleashed his best effort?

Anybody a fan of "The Manchurian Candidate?"

Check out the Frank Sinatra version.

Mid-way thru the plot, Angela Lansbury fetches a deck of cards and lays them before (I've forgotten the character's name -- the brainwashee). The camera frames Lansbury against a portrait of Lincoln over the mantle. The shot is repeated.

Then listen to many neocons, especially zionists. They know US history far better than USians do. One of the tactics taught in the Hasbara manual is to associate israeli policies or actions with the actions of an heroic character in US history, in order to reflect on israeli policies the favorable impression planted in the mind by the heroic reference. Lincoln is a stock reference in these acts of rhetorical sleight-of-hand. For example, dig up an appearance by Rep Gary Ackerman on C-Span/Washington Journal in about June: when callers got feisty, Ackerman first turned combative, then developed "amnesia," then hauled out Lincoln to bolster his defense.

The Kagan boys, Kristol, Pete Wehner, George Weigel--the whole panoply of right-wing ideologues hang Lincoln's portrait above their mantles. Lincoln is stock schtick.

And I wonder if Rove discusses Napoleon with Fred Kagan. In his hefty tome on the little Corsican, Kagan hammers away at a definition of France as a rogue state and applies the definition to Iran.

Kagan further reaches into Napoleonic history to excuse the prevailing empirial power from any culpability for immoral acts, statinq quite boldly that the power that is maintaining international order is exempt from the usual moral requirements.

does your keyboard have hiccups or does "wrt" mean something?

In a surprise party at the Heritage Fdn, Fred Kaplan and sub-turdblossom Mike O Hanlon opined on what Code Pink had their say, which was: You guys are a bunch of damned murderers, complicit in Bush's rape of Iraq. Heritage had some women and a black man escort the Code Pink ladies to the door. There is strong suspicion that the Code Pinkers are actually Iranians -- the paint on the casing on their banners and the .......

ooops, that's not what I meant to say.

What I meant to talk about is Fred Kaplan's comments. He could not find enough ways to say, "The US House and Senate have no business, no knowledge, no skill equal to mine, no competence, in managing this war." Kaplan is really incensed that the representatives of the American people who are paying for this benighted adventure, actually presume to have a say in its conduct. That right and capacity resides solely in the president (and, um, his advisers, namely Kaplan).

Say it again, Code Pink ladies. You're the only folks in Washington with balls.