I also believe in the efficacy and occasional necessity of force in foreign affairs. When necessary!

But I don't consider killing about 1,000,000 Iraqis who did nothing wrong, and then displacing additional millions more, and then torturing tens-of-thousands of innocents to find no intel, "efficacy and occasional necessity of force." These vicious actions were all done to protect Israel and steal oil and protect corporate profits under the false guise of mushroom clouds.

You've got to be kidding me!

What prattle!

--

You just posted the best analysis and evaluation of the current chaotic state of this country that I have ever read.

Thanks!

The dithering, prattling, incompetent democrats in congress, along with the administration's lapdogs (Lieberman, Fienstien, Hoyer, Schumer, et al) will do nothing. Absolutely nothing! A few may offer incredibly pathetic and inane comments supporting the president, They will feel compassion as they always do. A few will mutter words of mock indignation.

The great majority of the uninformed, self-absorbed citizenry could care less.

The wealthy elite and the VIPs in the republican party and the CEOs in the global corporations will find this episode humorous. Tsk, tsk! For shame! Hahahaha!

This isn't serious. Serious stuff is screwing around with an intern.

I find these scientific versus religion dissertations very interesting. Someone called Haught a sophist. I don't think so, because there is nothing subtle in his arguments, which, forgive me, just seem to be stupid. Paulson is just an annoying foil.

The main reason I enjoy these articles/dissertations is in reading the comments. They are really impressive. The feeling I get reading the comments related to this article is very similar to enjoying those in the NY Times when Stanley Fish puts forth nonsense on the existence of God; and then quotes Milton instead of the bible to justify what he is saying.

I feel I get a better idea of the controversy from comments than any book or article I have read. The commentators, this is a little crazy, make me proud to be an atheist. Who woulda thought!

One comment indicated how difficult it is to become a "complete and utter atheist." I agree! My mother did a job on me. Even after becoming a Korean War vet and going to college on the GI Bill, I majored in theology in order to have the Jesuits explain what I couldn't understand. The result of that education made me a "complete and utter atheist."

I enjoyed reading the Zen commenter who "will fight to the death" if anyone tries to take his "personal religion" from him. I agree with what he says because I also couldn't care less about the argument per se. The reason I am interested is because religion, as nonsensical as it seems to me, is being thrust upon me. It is making serious inroads into the the government and that is a grave concern.

I am hardly an expert on anything, but I find that science has determined that the universe, as we know it, is 13.7 billion years old and was the result of some sort of explosion. It seems to me that that explosion was in a preexisting universe that we don't yet understand. As they say about God, as I recall, "He always was, is now, and always will be." I think they are really talking about the universe(s).

Again I am happy that these discussions are happening. While reading Dawkin's book I kept thinking that if I had been able to read a book like this in 1955 I could have avoided listening to the Jesuits spouting their gibberish.

I unabashedly support Obama. I don't want to revisit the days of Monica, Marc Rich, deadly political destruction, et al. Same old, same old!

I think Obama realizes that the politics of government are undeniably vicious and nasty. Everything revolves around money. Yet Obama offers me some hope. I abhor torture and preemptive war and I am not convinced that HRC will be any different than Bush. In fact I can't recall anyone as non-positional as her since Nelson Rockefeller.

I would never vote for a Bush or a Clinton again. I can't recall HRC ever doing anything worthy of note that was good. I only remember the health care fiasco of the early 90's. She also has recorded $500 million in earmarks as a senator doing what a senator does. Who cares if it stinks to high heaven?

I stupidly thought a democratic congress in 2006 would put the brakes on the Bush administration. So obviously, I am a pretty dumb individual. But hope springs eternal.

But the reason I am writing this post is to support the proposition put forth by a poster that there are many, many, democrats such as me who won't vote for HRC. I won't vote or I shall vote for McCain, who is honest, I think.

What can you say that's nice about HRC? She stood by her man as he went through hordes of willing women. That makes her worthy of the presidency of the USA? I think not.

If she becomes president she will be encumbered by many debts to many unsavory people.

No thanks!

P.S. I also think that this was a dumb, poorly-written, and self-absorbed article.

Every neocon right-wing pundit that I am aware of, wants Clinton to win. Of course, Ann Coulter is leading the pack, followed by the NY Times conservative op-ed pundits.

It has been well documented that they all believe they can beat her; and I agree with them. Very, very seldom is it when I agree with them.

She has done nothing in her life except accrue a lot of vile baggage and been the wife of Bill as he plowed through the throngs of women in his path.

Oh yes, she did get $500 million in earmarks for NY. Must be worth something!