The problem with your point is this: The escalation known as the surge was ostensibly designed to improve security to allow the Iraqi government to use that opportunity to create political order that could be a basis for unifying and pacifying the country. The Iraqi government did no such thing. Though there has been slight securiy improvement in Iraq due to the escalation, the Iraqi government has actually declined in effectiveness. What do we do if the Iraqi government <<never>> gets its house in order? Do we stay forever? At what point do we cut our losses and realize that we are not helping to fix what we broke, and that we are in the process of breaking our own country's military, political, and economic future? As it stands, the American people have almost totally lost confidence in their own government, given that the Republicans, led by Bush, have shown no interest in stopping this war, and the Democrats' numbers are too small in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. What do we do if our people completely lose faith that democratic government can actually lead to action based the desires and needs of the people? I think this is an issue we need to face up to. Iraq is not going to get better. Are we to wait until all the Iraqis have fled, and we have peace because Iraq is empty? Are we to place a new brutal dictator in power there? It is not that there are no easy answers about how to fix Iraq, it is that there are no answers at all. The real question is that of whether or not we will completely break America before we learn that lesson.

Can we all agree that someone who comes around referring to anyone who is politically to the left of them even to the slightest degree as "radical libs", uses "Democrat" as an adjective, and prattles on about supposed liberal conspiracies to create a "nanny state" (I hate to break it to you, but I don't think you actually know any liberals if you think that is what we want), and describes the "values voters" posing the questions reported on as "swing voters" (in what parallel universe?) while declaring a complete understanding of the majority of Americans want/don't want is very likely a troll and thus to be ignored or at least not taken seriously?

Ladies and gentlemen, my point has been made and reinforced.

I noticed that, too, and I am glad it bothered someone else. I can understand that it might just be a piece of detail thrown in to set the scene better, but, given that it could be interpreted as a gratuitous slight, it really should have been left out. I don't think Scherer thought it mattered that she had a speech impediment, though (or at least I home he didn't).

I am still not sure, but you make a good point I had not considered. Given how craven and cynical these folks tend to be, I wouldn't be surprised if you are right.

I really don't mean to stir up controversy or offend anyone by this. I respect that others have very odd beliefs from my perspective. Frankly, I take the view, to take from Wicca,"If it harms none, believe what though wilt." However, I have real problems with Mormonism because it is so evangelical in its bent. It bothers me that it is so focused on converting everyone, and has so little respect for other belief systems. Why not leave others alone? How is it ethical to go into undeveloped areas and prey on the populations with what are essentially high-pressure and deceptive sales practices? In short, my beef with Mormonism is the same as it is with any evangelical religion, from varieties of protestantism to atheism. People should be allowed to find their way religiously without being proselytized to. If your belief system is truly the only correct one, and if it matters (an important distinction - Zoroastrians believe they are absolutely correct, but they also believe that God doesn't care what you believe), then people will figure that out on their own (yes, my views on religious exceptionalism can be read from this comment, I imagine). Mormonism rankles me more than most because it is so focused and organized in its disrespect for others and effort to sell itself as widely as possible. Again, why not leave others alone? Would it really be so hard?

Again, no offense to any Mormons on this board, but that is how I feel.

Everyone on this board should immediately stop their attacks on our proud legislators and their noble actions. If not they, then who, I ask you, who will stand in this country against advertisements of mass destruction? What greater threat to our proud republic is there than such foul demonstrations of free speech?

Look back at our great forerunners in democracy, the Athenians. When in a true battle for their state's life, did they allow a comic playwright like Aristophanes poke vicious fun at their leaders and generals? Oh, wait a minute...they did. Okay, then, look back at our forefathers in this country. During the Civil War did they allow newspapers to publish cartoons denouncing and making fun of our generals in the field against the South? Oh, wait a minute...

Honestly, though, this is sickening. If you are so thin-skinned as to be afraid of political ads, you really shouldn't be a general. Get over it. This is just one more stop toward deification of the military. When did it become right for the civilian government to have to demean itself so before the military for such trivial reasons?