Remind me why "9/11 changed everything" so drastically that we had no choice but to abandon the most basic and precious Constitutional precepts of our democratic republic -- habeas corpus, warrants before searches, right to counsel, on and on.

Where are the usual suspects? Well, I’ll play devil’s advocate…

On 9/11, the enemy struck our cities killing 3,000 civilians in an act of unprovoked aggression. This enemy is unlike any we’ve ever faced: they plot, they adapt, and they belong to no particular country. They are everywhere and nowhere.

9/11 was, in part, a U.S. failure. Agencies did not share information with each other that could have prevented the attacks due to “privacy” concerns. Technology and communication have changed, and law enforcement was fighting this new enemy with one arm tied behind its back.

We need new tools to fight the enemy, and the Patriot Act is one such tool:

The law allows our intelligence and law enforcement officials to continue to share information. It allows them to continue to use tools against terrorists that they used against -- that they use against drug dealers and other criminals.--President Bush, March 2006

Furthermore, the Patriot Act, passed with near unanimity, has safeguards to prevent abuse including: 1) high-level approval for sensitive requests like library and medical records, 2) limits on retention and dissemination of documents and 3) audits by the Inspector General. And there has not been a single substantiated violation of civil liberties under the Patriot Act.

The Constitution is safe. And now, with the Patriot Act, we can be, too.

Ew, did I just come up with a slogan for the Patriot Act?

-

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/patriotact/

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/December/05_opa_682.html

There were 4,000 fewer jobs in August because people "left the work force for any number of reasons," according to the AP. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090700926.html?tid=informbox]

Maybe they left the workforce for the troop surge in Iraq.

Maybe they worked at a school that lost funding for not meeting "No Child Left Behind" standards.

Maybe, due to the Bush tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, we have more idle rich--they've left the workplace altogether.

Maybe they worked in the Bush Administration and were part of the "turn in your walking papers by Labor Day" group.

We have 4,000 fewer jobs because Bush's plans are working. And we're kicking ass.

RichEmery writes, "Why he's vaulted to become a leading Republican presidential candidate is one of today's deepest mysteries."

Actually, it's a pretty shallow mystery.

The G.O.P. electorate is very dissatisfied with their slate--they've never trusted John McCain, Mitt Romney will too obviously say anything to get elected, and Rudy Giuliani is no social conservative.

Meanwhile, Moderates and even Republicans are sick of Bush, sick of Iraq and looking to 2008 as a year of change. And the Republicans don't have an incumbent Republican running for re-election or a vice-president.

Republicans are desperate.

So they're pouring all of their hopes and dreams into a T.V. star--"I don't know what he believes, so he must believe what I believe!" As such, Thompson is perfect. Until he opens his mouth.

Then he goes from "Great White Hope" to "Great White Hype."

My initial reaction is "how cool is that?!" Hillary Clinton's a ball-buster, a nut-cracker. She's the hawk among the Democratic candidates. She's gone toe-to-toe with the Republican Smear Machine.

She's got, as Stephen Colbert would say, "Thatchers."

Which is exactly the way a viable, female presidential candidate needs to be in the U.S.

But it's also a sexualized Hillary Clinton--the references to her stainless steel thighs. You enter the website by clicking the space between her legs.

Can a female presidential candidate be sexual? Margaret Thatcher can be described in many ways, but "sexpot" doesn't usually come to mind.

I mean, when you think about it, Bill Clinton is a kinky horndog. Hillary Clinton's probably done some wild stuff with him at least a couple of times. I think now we just take a certain comfort in her asexuality--she and Bill don't do it, they're just a political team. Which is why people freaked out when her suit, gasp showed a hint of cleavage.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this. Maybe, can a presidential candidate be sexual? Can a female presidential candidate be sexual?

Look, Senate Democrats need 67 votes (enough to override a presidential veto) to change Iraq. There aren't 67 Democrats in the Senate, so you do the math. To effect any change at all, Democrats need to lower their sights to bring more moderate Republicans on board.

As for a change in Iraq strategy...by now, most people (probably even most Bushies) realize that we really f-cked it up. It's bad there now, but if (and when) we leave, it'll be awful. The country will further divide among sectarian lines. Iran and Syria will rush in to protect their own interests. Iraqis who supported the U.S. will be slaughtered. And for a couple of years, things will be pretty much unbearable. And no one wants to be the captain of that sinking ship--not Bush, not Petraeus, not Gates and not the Democrats. So we're left with the status quo, trying to hold off the inevitable.

Inevitable because we have to leave Iraq eventually. It's just a matter of how much more we'll lose in American lives and treasure while we continue to put Band-Aids on a wound that needs major surgery. We need to get serious about extricating ourselves from Iraq in the least crappy way possible. It ain't glamorous, and it ain't pretty.

We need leaders who are prepared to eat sh-t for the fallout from our Iraq withdrawal, even if they weren't responsible for Iraq to begin with. Unsurprisingly, no one is stepping up to the plate.