He's completely insignificant. He literally doesn't matter. Even if he actually did say Israel should be nuked, he has no power to effect that.

He may as well be the crazy guy outside 7-11 for all the power he has over Iranian foreign policy.

Khomeni is in charge, and by all evidence he is quite rational. If you're worried about Iran nuking Israel, just make a US guarantee of retaliation in the event of Israel being nuked, including by terrorism that can be linked to Iran.

And why wouldn't Iran want a nuke? As North Korea and Pakistan proved, you can be as extremist as you want, you can even have Osama bin laden in your borders, if you have nukes, the chickenshit neo-cons will not touch you.

If I were Khomeni, I'd want a nuke too, just to keep the batshit crazy neo cons from harming my people.

There is a crazy party in this equation, and it's not Iran.

Lying and deception are a fundamental part of the right's overall strategy. They will use the truth when it suits them, but demonstrate no qualms about going well beyond truthful when required to make their "points."

Some people on the left will lie or misrepresent at times, but these are far too few, far between and generally ineffective to be part of the actual gameplan or acceptable tactical tool chest for the left.

The left has no one as repetitively and routinely dishonest as Limbaugh, and the right has a dozen more people just as flagrantly disingenuous who only vary on medium or amount of influence. O'Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, Savage, Reagan, Reynolds etc etc.

You're welcome to try, I guarantee others have. There is a reason the Wall Street Journal's editorial page is famous for lying, even as compared to other right wing outlets. They take full advantage of the credibility the sane news division wins to spread their crap.

They've even been caught being at strict factual odds with the reporting in their own newspaper, which was quite a hoot.

So I won't hold my breath for them issuing a correction. They're lying, they know it, telling them about it isn't going to shame them into correcting it.

So I guess your point is, that although the country is going down the toilet and representatives from both American political parties are complicit in its demise, since Democrats are slightly nicer people, we can all breathe easier.

Thanks for clearing that up, I feel so much better now.

You guess wrong. I can't remember anyone getting the point of a piece more wrong than this in quite some time. Seriously, how the hell do you read this from AL's piece?

And the point that I missed was what...? I think it's possible AL would like to also hear your cogent analysis because in AL's reply below yours, he didn't make any such claim, he just said he wasn't addressing all the problems in the world...an answer I accept but would still suggest that spending so many words critiquing the state of political discourse in the present situation is a little like standing around watching a fire demolish a neighborhood and arguing about the color of the fire trucks.

You're another one of those people who thinks that everyone should be only writing about what you think is the most important issue, and anyone who fails to write about that is just helping the disaster along.

AL made his point, made them reasonably well, I agree with him and because he didn't extend his essay into FISA or Iraq or the constitutional abuses or torture or whatever you are outraged enough to completely misrepresent his post as something it was not.

He said nothing like, resembling or vaguely readable as what you posted as his thesis. I do not have to justify my understanding of the piece.

Can you recite the powers granted to the president by the Constitution that are not subject to legislation by the Congress? Can you present an argument for each absolute authority on your list? We'd like to see this.

I wouldn't. No offence to you, but we know Shooter's answers:

What Executive powers can't congress limit? - All of them.

Why? "Commander in chief" + "I am an authoritarian"

In the authoritarian mindset, congress exists to give the president whatever money he (always a "he") demands, and provide a veneer of small d democratic legitimacy for an Executive branch gone wild.

Well, poking around his web site, I can't find a specific statement by Edwards on FISA, however I did find this blog entry (not by Edwards, but still) which quotes Glenn complaining about retroactive immunity:

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/10/14/124410/88

Seeing as this is part of the official campaign blog, it is safe to say edwards is opposed to immunity, but no, he hasn't called for a filibuster, take from that what you will.

Also, I did find a statement where Edwards is opposed to further media consolidation.