The White House was just "one bomb away from getting rid of that obnoxious [FISA] court."

Translation: Just one more terrorist attack on America would persuade Congress to free the Bush administration of the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Alternate Translation: The Bush Administration planned to bomb Congress.

Afterall, what role does Congress have to play? They're just supposed to sign Bush's checks.

"Souter wept."

-John 11:35

Amity, I’ve decided to resist the temptation to grab you by the shoulders and shake you and instead address some of your points:

1. “Clinton, Obama and Edwards are all the same.” It’s true that at this point, they’ve indicated little, if any, differences in policy among each other. We’ll see if this changes as we get closer to the primaries.

2. “The Democratic Congress is no different from the GOP Congress before it.” The Democratic Congress has brought fewer earmarks and greater fiscal balance to Congress. Which is partly by comparison to the runaway pork-fest that has been Congress during the Bush years. Democrats have not accomplished as much as some would have liked in the seven months since they’ve been in power. This is because the Senate is still closely divided and 67 votes (to override a Presidential veto) are needed to substantially charge war policy. Democrats don’t have 67 votes on their own some Republicans are gradually seeing the light. But this is an argument that we needed to elect more to Congress to affect change, not fewer.

3a. “Who cares whom the Court chose?” Do you really think a President Al Gore would have led us into a preemptive war with Iraq following 9/11? Because 4,000 dead Americans, a minimum of 76,000 dead Iraqis, and $500 Billion to date all say there’s a big difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency.

3b. “Who cares whom the Court chose?” Since Bush was able to appoint Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court, the Court has solidly shifted rightward. They gutted students’ free-speech rights in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case. They limited the timeframe for filing workplace discrimination cases to 180 days, so if it takes you 6 months to find out you’re under-paid, you’re out of luck. They upheld the so-called partial-birth abortion ban on the grounds that women need to be protected from decisions they may regret. Presidents can change the Supreme Court, changing law for generations to come.

4. “I've heard from a great many progressives, liberals, and other deep thinkers that there's no point in voting in 2008.” All of the points above are just an introduction to the all-too-true sentiment: “Elections have consequences.” Anyone who doesn’t see this after the Bush presidency isn’t paying attention, no matter how deep a thinker they may claim to be. If you’re truly a progressive working for change, you don’t sit on the sidelines b-tching. You play the hand you’re dealt and you fight. Hard.

"sar·chasm ('sär-"ka-z&m) : The giant gulf between what is said and the person who doesn't get it."

Buffalonian, are you trying to impart me with some wisdom? If so, you're right--I don't get it. Sarcasm often does not translate well in these forums: 1.) written, such that you cannot read the "speaker's" face, 2) you don't know the writer well enough to know they're being sarcastic and 3) people write some crazy sh-t, here, so it's hard to tell when someone's joking. I've been guilty of it myself.

Now, Buffalonian, are you trying to say something?

“I mean, if one was going to lie, one may as well go for broke.”

No kidding. That’s like getting an “F” on your report card and turning it into a “B” instead of and “A.” But, then again, maybe a “B” is more believable.

And, thank you, GAO, for reiterating the purpose of “The Surge”:

Reconciliation was also premised on a reduction in violence. While the Baghdad security plan was intended to reduce sectarian violence, it is unclear whether violence has been reduced. Measuring such violence may be difficult since the perpetrators’ intents are not clearly known. Other measures, such as the number of enemy-initiated attacks, show that violence has remained high through July 2007.

Let’s review: Goals: Increase the troops to decrease the violence and increase the reconciliation. Thus far, we’ve increased the troops, possibly reduced the violence and definitely not increased the reconciliation.

They also recommend the following:

The Secretary of Defense and the heads of other appropriate agencies provide information to the President on trends in sectarian violence with appropriate caveats, as well as broader quantitative and qualitative measures of security

Translation: please provide honest metrics. How novel!

http://gao.gov/

That is sarcasm.

I am quite aware that this thing called satire has existed in written form for quite some time. I invite you to actually read my entire post, in which I write:

Sarcasm often does not translate well in these forums: 1.) written, such that you cannot read the "speaker's" face, 2) you don't know the writer well enough to know they're being sarcastic and 3) people write some crazy sh-t, here, so it's hard to tell when someone's joking.

Not everyone who writes here is a "Swift," as evidenced by you.

Not everyone who writes here is necessarily "swift" either. Also as evidenced by you and your inability to read.

That play on words is what is known as a "pun." Pronunciation: ˈpən

Being an ass is easy. Being sincere is hard. Congratulations, Buffalonian, on being so very simple.

That's another pun.

Now, be gone, before someone drops a house on you.

Apparently, when Bush uses the word "benchmark," he's referring to the obscure computer hacker slang, meant ironically:

benchmark

[techspeak] An inaccurate measure of computer performance. “In the computer industry, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and benchmarks.”

http://www.answers.com/topic/benchmark?cat=biz-fin

You are worth no more of my time. Moving on, with suggestions you scamper off yourself...