There likely will still be a bloodbath. It's just unlikely the bloodbath will involve al Qaida setting up a base in Iraq from which they flood the U.S. with spectacular attacks. Still bad, of course, but less of an immediate and direct threat to the United States.

The thing is, the Iraqi bloodbath will happen when we leave--whether it's in ten months or ten years. It's really a matter of how much we're willing to spend in American lives and treasure while delaying the inevitable.

Speaking of dealing with it seriously, they sent out the NIE, and then have said NOTHING about how they're going to prepare for a possible attack. Nothing. Not a single thing... What does the administration plan to do?

Silly, jedimaster, it's not about what the administration plans to do. It's about what they want us to do. And what they want us to do is be very afraid and yield unquestioning loyalty to our Fearless Leader. To advance their own ideological agenda, they want to strike fear into the hearts of civilians.

Hey, isn't that the definition of "terror?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

NOW's unofficial stance seems reasonable:

NOW has not taken an official stand on the issue. But Gandy said the organization has urged local women's rights activists to oppose legislation that doesn't include language guaranteeing that certificates of stillborn birth will only be issued to fetuses that die as a result of a naturally occurring intrauterine death after the 20th week of pregnancy. NOW also stipulates that certificates must only be issued only to parents who request them.

Issuing such a certificate makes logical sense in light of the fact the woman was issued a death certificate for the stillborn. How can there be a death certificate without a corresponding birth certificate? You need both or neither.

I've gotta say, that's ballsy. White House officials used RNC accounts to conduct official business such that this business would not be subject to the oversight and documentation given to official White House business.

And now their trying to find away to cloak these emails under Executive Priviledge as White House business!

Pretty impressive, really.

This could all end now if the Democrats chose to end it now. Yes, it's a Republican war, but there's only a Democratic solution. And they won't exercise it.

Do you mean cutting off all funding? I think it would be irresponsible for Democrats to cut off military funding during a war unless all other avenues had been exhausted.

And really, Democrats would likely need 60 votes for such a move (as all other major Iraq War votes have required) and that simply does not exist.

So keep blaming the Republicans. Unless someone actually has a plan for Democrats to end the war that could actually be implemented under our constitution.

After all, it's pretty clear that the Unitary Executive Theory only exists as a means to cover up illegal, unethical or unconstitutional acts.

Not necessarily. It also exists to cover up politically damaging and unpopular acts. And it keeps your options open to commit illegal, unethical or unconstitutional acts. It's good to have options.

Regarding a "Republican unitary executive": dictatorships are great! When you're the dictator...

Yeah, the study also should have asked about other forms of sexual activity. I'm very curious about the cause of the drop:

• increased oral and anal sex as "alternatives?"
• is there less teen sex during times of peace and economic prosperity, such as during the 1990s?
• fears of AIDS?
• girls' greater involvement in sports under Title IX, with sports participation showing a correlation in delayed sexual activity?
• the rise of pharmaceuticals in the water (such as birth control pills) diminishing sex drive?
• too busy playing video games?
• the rise of obesity in teens, which also diminishes the sex drive?

They are putting birth control medicine in the water now? Where can I get it? I wonder if that's covered by my FSA?

Would that it were that simple. But for anyone who's curious, articles on hidden pharmaceuticals in the water:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060926-9999-1n26water.html

http://www.epa.gov/ppcp/faq.html

Right now, they're still researching the effects of these "emerging contaminants," which include the portion of medications our bodies don't absorb (and are excreted) as well as the ones we willingly wash down the drain.

Great points, TinyBubbles. Now, if we can just combine the innovations and cost-cutting of the free market with the accountability of government…

When it comes to infrastructure, our cities are just macro versions of our homes. Do the regular maintenance of cleaning your gutters, keeping your electricity and plumbing up to code, etc. or suffer the consequences when you least expect it. And when you try to do these repairs on the cheap, it usually comes back to bite you in the ass. This isn’t necessarily a conservative or liberal issue. It’s more of a people in general issue.

"Unles it convinces 100% of teenagers to abstain, it is worthless, because those who don't buy it will have too much to figure out for themselves."

• I hadn't thought of it this way. Comprehensive sex ed doesn't have to be 100% effective because even if kids are having sex, comprehensive ed could at least encourage them to do so in a safe way. Because abstinence-only is so limited in scope, there are no other options or fall-back. So it has to be 100% or nothing. Good point.

"I seriously doubt, however, that anything much has happened to the sex drive of teenagers."

• Another theory: the drive is the same, just teenage [boys] are satisfying it through the expanded availability of free internet porn.