NATO's Article 10 states:

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Wouldn't this mean that Giuliani's proposal is completely impossible?

I'm not saying that the lunacy of it shouldn't be exposed, of course.

and I can't seem to find any reference to NATO or the EU inviting Israel to join.

I guess only ~~~~~ knows the secret combination of search terms to use.

Either that, or he/she's a liar.

two opposite poles - horrible.

As an American of Polish desent, I am sickened by this display of bigotry.

I admit to having my own little fantasies - George Bush getting "frog-marched" out of the White House, Dick Cheney being visited by the ghosts of dead Iraqi civilians on Christmas eve, etc.

I enjoy them, and then I realize that they have nothing to do with reality; they are the product of too much television and movies. We all seem to want that cathartic moment when the "bad guy" admits he was wrong, and then everyone lives happily ever after.

But it is troubling that Mr. Potfry and others, who are so terrified of "Islamists", have fantasies involving the violent deaths, not of the so-called "enemy", but of fellow Americans who question the level of hysteria.

And don't they ever realize that, when people are whipped up into such overwhelming levels of paranoia and hatred against an "enemy", it's not the "enemy" that eventually takes away their freedoms? It's their own fascistic tendencies and those of the governments they put in power.

Hey, I'd like to have an apology from the "Group of 88", but O'Reilly's offense is worse in a couple of ways.

First of all, he does this kind of thing over, and over, and over. Not the exact same thing, of course. But he is always a liar, a bully and a blowhard, and he never gives an inch, even when he is clearly wrong. I doubt that we'll ever hear from the "Group of 88" again, but O'Reilly is on the airwaves (radio or TV) every day.

Second, O'Reilly has millions of listeners/viewers. His influence is magnitudes of order greater than a group of college professors at Duke University.

Don't worry, Al Gore won't lose his home state this time. That honor will go to Fred Thompson. But wait, that's assuming that he gets the nomination, which he surely won't.

O'Reilly actually said this?:

[W]ould you support President John Edwards? Remember, no coerced interrogation, civilian lawyers in courts for captured overseas terrorists, no branding the Iranian guards terrorists, and no phone surveillance without a specific warrant.

The world has truly been turned upside down when someone could say that upholding these principles is un-American.

I saw the News Hour interview with Edwards this week. There was virtually nothing that I could disagree with. He has the union message exactly right. He seems genuine, even moreso than Dennis Kucinich.

Feel better now?

Good, now get back to me when a former Republican President or Vice President wins the Nobel Peace Prize.

(But, BTW, Gore lost Tennessee because Tennesseans, like Kansans, will vote against their best interests nearly every time. IOW, they're not very well informed.)

...a former Republican President or Vice President wins a Nobel Peace Prize.

You had to go back 100 years to find someone. And, of course, we all know that the ideals of the Republican party have not changed at all in those 100 years, right? As Athenian has pointed out, Teddy Roosevelt would certainly be a RINO by today's standards. Actually, he would probably be driven out of the party completely.

So, tell me to suck on it all you like. The fact is that the modern Republican party has done nothing to help make the world a better place. Jimmy Carter and Al Gore deserve the recognition they have received, and I am enjoying watching the right wing twist itself in knots over Mr. Gore's small bit of vindication.

If, in some bizarro future world, Bush wins a Nobel Peace Prize, it will suddenly become a big deal again.

Of course, I realize that my predictive powers on this matter will NEVER, EVER be tested because it's not even a remote possibility that Bush will spend his post-presidential years doing anything that would benefit mankind.

that a religious denomination that says all women are good for is bearing children, cooking and cleaning house would call on these same women to educate the next generation of men.

How do they explain this? If it's not to create an army of mindless religious zealots, then what's the reason?

No, you're not going far enough.

The Dara Wilkersons of the world should just stop having sex if they don't have jobs with health insurance.

If their husbands need sex, then there will surely be a Republican Congressman waiting in a restroom stall to service them.

It's a win-win situation.

for turning me into a paranoid lunatic. Because every one of these scenarios has occurred to me as a real probability. I never used to be like this, and I have to say that it really sucks to be thinking this way.

I find it somewhat doubtful that legislators who have basically been bought by the large telecom companies would allow a bill with such a large loophole in it. I am hopeful that your analysis is correct, but I'm not counting on it.