If you teach an animal or a person a lesson in meanness, don't be surprised if they learn it.

It's good to see at least one of the vitriol merchants who appear to possess little, if any, human decency, finally confronted by one of their victims.

I find your explicit statement that if it were proven that the Iranian government had supported attacks on the American military that such activity would constitute an act of war for which we would presumably be justified in retaliating interesting.

During the Iran/Iraq war of the '80s, the NYT published front page articles about US support to Iraq in the form of weaponry to be used by Iraq to attack Iran. Would this not also be an act of war? My understanding is that currently we are conducting overflights of Iran with our unmanned surveillance aircraft. Would this not also be an act of war? And the above is not an exhaustive list of American behavior that either constitute acts of war or are tantamount to such against the country of Iran. Thus, it would seem to me that any bombing of Iran would merely constitute an escalation of a war that the US already started.

Our constitution places the responsibility for declaring war on the Congress but it does not appear to constrain the Executive branch from behavior that constitutes an act of war. Under these circumstances, I don't believe we can view the behavior of another country independent of our own behavior. Your suggestion that we would be justified in retaliating is like suggesting that after person A slapped person B, person B's slap in response justifies a full blown assault on person B by person A. In order to take that position, you have to completely ignore the fact that person A slapped person B first.

I sent the following e-mail to both my senators and my representative:

So much for the United States being a country of laws and not men. Why don't we simply amend the Federal Code for sentencing guidelines to make an exception for high ranking Republican cronies?

All three of my representatives are Republicans.

Something that struck me a couple of years ago that represented a true shift in America's relations with the rest of the world is this: I spent six years in the USAF in the late 60's/early 70s defending the world from communism. I thought and think it was a good thing. Not because I objected to Russia or China or whomever being communist. I figured that if they wanted to live with that suboptimal economic theology that seems to always bring with it totalitarian dictatorship, so be it. What I objected to was the evil empire's efforts to export their vision of things to the rest of the world by illegitimate means.

What am I presented with now? According to the Shrubbites, we are bringing democracy to the Mideast weather they want it or not. And the attack of Iraq is hardly what I would call legitimate means. So we are doing the same thing that the evil empire did only the product we are peddling is democracy (a political structure) instead of communism (an economic structure).

So does this mean that War Room as logic and reality free as the rest of Washington? : )

While this is a civil case that should be a criminal case, I believe that if the government is operating in secret (the ability of the government to operate in secret is something that needs to be limited), the burden of proof in this case should be that the government didn't uniquely harm the plaintiffs under the contractual concept "impossibility of performance". Since defendant in this case has all the information and plaintiff has none, only by divulging a list of all whom have been harmed by this government action can it be determined if the specific litigants have or have not been harmed. Absenting a positive defense from the government that the litigants have not been harmed, it should be presumed that they have been. And thus have standing.

We seem to have a boatload of politicians who want to tell us what to do or, more commonly, not do. When will our political culture break the code that, if you want comity, you need to stop trying to tell people what to do (or not) unless it falls in the category of murder, theft, fraud, or something else that actually hurts other people.

And, frankly, in my opinion, there's nothing more contemptible than a hypocrite.

Clearly he hasn't been tortured enough.

Ma'am, I can only hope that your use of "cheney" as a substitute for the F-word catches on. I love it. Sort of like the German tribe whose name is still used after all these centuries as synonymous with mindless destruction.