Here's some quotes from his speech which make the hate crystal clear:

"America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable."

"Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

"To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."

What does all this mean to the wingnuts? Well obviously, Obama is a secret Manchurian candidate Muslim who prays daily for the destruction of Israel, and wants Hamas to have nuclear capabilities. Of course.

You guys are getting more hilarious every day. At this point you must be praying for the destruction of Israel, just so you won't be wrong. Not that being wrong has ever given you pause before.

I've seen Comey's name pop up quite a few times, and he does indeed appear to be the closest thing to a good apple in a bushel of bad apples. Apparently he thought individual techniques were legal but not advisable as a matter of policy, and he had serious questions about the legality of techniques used in combination.

Of course, all of these techniques were used in combination before and after the memos were written -- so detainees were kept in stress positions for hours a day, all while their calorie intake and sleep were severely restricted, and subject to regular beatings. Even without waterboarding, it is easy to see the serious risk of permanent harm that could result from these techniques, which is why it is not surprising that over a hundred detainees have died in US custody. This is known by honest people the world over as a torture regime.

Is it really surprising that the few people in the Bush administration with some small measure of independent thought or conscience all resigned?

oh, and Glock45 -- You can troll better than that. Put some effort into it!

Well no, it doesn't. You say she's "demonstrated that she is a liberal activist judge." And yet you cite no precedent to support that whatsoever. When?

You say about her infamous statement at Berkely "conservatives reading that come away with a real concern that her attitudes about equal justice may depend, or at least be shaped by, the race and gender of the parties involved in the cases before her." But she has decided discrimination cases. Several, actually. And she has ruled against the minority party in most of the discrimination cases she has heard.

You say "fairness is a subjective standard. Constitutionality is not, or at least shouldn’t be." This ignores the fact that even ideologically similar Justices don't agree 100% of the time, and they often disagree on important cases. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where Scalia and Thomas took completely opposite positions (Scalia being joined by Stevens of all people), comes to mind.

Then you cite Ricci v. DeStefano, where she was part of a unanimous panel upholding the decision of New Haven to throw out the results of a test that the city determined was not fair. Of course, the white firefighter challenging the city's decision was a highly sympathetic plaintiff. Are you saying that she should have been empathetic to his plight and disregarded the law, or are you saying that, despite the fact she was joined by two white judges, she reached her conclusion to deny him relief because he is white and she is a racist?

You also mention that Ricci is now going to be heard by the Supreme Court, as if the case being overturned would be embarassing for her. Of course, Chief Justice Roberts didn't participate in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld because he had heard the case in the D.C. Circuit. He joined with Judge Randolph in an opinion that was rejected by the Supreme Court. Does that call Chief Justice Roberts' judgment into question?

Next, and even funnier for someone with a rudimentary knowledge of the law, you cite Maloney v. Cuomo. This is hilarious because you contrast it with D.C. v. Heller, where the Supreme Court (well, the "non-activist" conservative members, at least) found an individual right of gun ownership. Nevermind that for 200 years the Supreme Court had resisted reading this right into the Second Amendment. Maybe that's because the Second Amendment starts with the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Would you say the Conservative "non-activist" judges interpreted the Constitution "in a way that is constrained by what it actually says and by precedent?"

D.C. v. Heller was a landmark case. You daring to criticize her for not anticipating it is as ridiculous as criticizing a judge for failing to apply Miranda before the Supreme Court decided it.

Finally, you blame the Obama administration for daring to "[make] Sotomayor’s nomination about her race and sex." Sure, and nobody mentioned that Marshall happened to be black or O'Connor happened to be a woman. How dare Obama talk about the fact that a latina could be on the Court!

And then you bring up Miguel Estrada -- who received a unanimous "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association and was opposed by Democrats. Well they must have only opposed him for political reasons, right? Wanna guess what rating Sotomayor got from the ABA?

A bitter three-way primary battle between Gingrich, Palin, and Romney would be possibly the most fun I could ever hope to have. If it does happen, I am inviting everyone over to my house for preemptive celebration drinks on debate nights.

And yes, the phrase "bitter three-way" was intended to create traumatic mental images. Sorry bout that.