I'd also like to remind Peter that GWBush wasn't elected in 2000, he was allowed into office by a Supreme Court decision and in 2004, 49% of us did NOT elect him. The 2% that swung the election was the 2% that stood to profit otherwise it was a dead heat. Given the chicanery in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 even that is in question. Not to criticize and hold to account an unqualified and incompetent administration that has squandered our resources and abused its power should be considered at least un-American if not treasonous. The real threat to our democracy is not the religious radicals (of any persuasion) but the undermining, circumventing and distortion of our Constitution by an unscrupulous administration enabled by false patriotism and lack of attention paid by the electorate and the failure of the fourth estate to do it's duty.

Did Rumsfeld actually try to convince the public that Al-Qaeda is better at propaganda and manipulation of the media than this administration is? It's amazing how dumb they think we are. Then again, there's still a portion of this country, albeit an ever decreasing portion, that still trusts GW and thinks Saddam was involved in 9/11 attack.

After hearing and seeing Al Gore speak on global warming in Portland last year, my perception of him changed radically. I supported and voted for him despite his rather stiff demeanor and his Republicrat running mate. He certainly isn't what he was presented as. When divested of whoever was mis-handling his presidential campaign he actually comes across relaxed, charismatic, engaging, interesting and informative. Had the Al Gore I saw been running in 2000, no amount of election manipulation would have beaten him. In retrospect, we missed a golden opportunity for the US to be a real leader in the world and not the bully state we've become.

I just listened to the U-tube of Robert Greenwald's appearance on Hardball vs.Frank Gaffney and I'm really fed up with the circular argument that the Blackwaters and Halliburtons et al are not "war profiteers" because they are in business and business's purpose is to make a profit so therefore are entitled to do so and shouldn't be denigrated for it. Or that these are highly trained individuals in harm's way that deserve to be compensated for their "service". EXCUSE ME! In spite of total disagreement with the reliance on mercenaries and for-profit military support, I'll concede that the person on the ground, in harms way, should be justly compensated, though not at rates so many times that of our military. What I would like to see exposed is just how much profit is going into the personal accounts of the presidents, vice presidents, CEOs, CFOs, COOs, BODs and major stockholders of these "not war profiteers". Are the citizens of this country so oblivious that this is our hard earned tax money flowing directly into the coffers of these overpaid, cynical, and I would add immoral and certainly un-Christian, manipulators. There's a "war" (undeclared by congress BTW) and they are profiting. In my book that's the definition of war profiteering.

Lewis Black is so right on when he points out that all these people who claim to be Christian invariably find the majority of their quotes in the Old Testament, which, he rightly points out is his book, the Jewish "Bible", the Torah plus some. To make matters worse, these "Christians" even get that wrong. I'm a life-long Christian, and the Jesus I know definitely wouldn't support what these distortionists preach. It never ceases to amaze me how shallow so many people's understanding of Christ's teaching is and that there are so many lazy, gullible sheep for the plethora of false prophets. What's really amazing is that we give these gullible sheep like Santorum any credibility at all.

Finally, main stream media can unequivocally shuck it's "Liberal" pejorative. It is now blatantly clear that the MSM is, at the very least, conservative if not actually on the campaign staff of John McCain. The free pass they continue to afford him despite his continuous vacillations. Either that or mastery of the English language is no longer a prerequisite for journalists. With the exception of political hacks like John Yu, David Addington and Alberto Gonzales, no lawyer could substantiate the claims that Gen Clark, in any way, was criticizing John McCain's war record. I, for one, would like this outraged media to provide even a partial list of the specific presidential skills and perspectives that Senator McCain's military service experience has provided him. At that, does no one remember that the framers of the Constitution made the president the commander-in-chief of the military specifically because they wanted to insure civilian control of the military? Until this past Sunday, I had respect for Bob Schieffer, now I'm not so sure.

To your closing rhetorical(?) question: "does O'Reilly just have very, very little faith in the reasoning abilities of his audience, or is he lying to himself too?" My answer: O'Reilly is arrogantly self-deceptive and delusional and his audience is a herd of intellectually lazy sheep who consume, without question, every distortion and falsehood that he spews. I wonder if his audience is even aware that there are easy ways to fact check his pronouncements. "No spin zone" my a**.

I was surprised to see Charles Rangle and Jack Murtha on the list. I'm curious as to what garnered this honor for them.

Amazing - John McCain cutting and running. Having personally admitted he's weak on the economy, he expects us to believe he wants to postpone the debate on foreign policy so he can add his expertise to solving the economic crisis. He continues to astound me with his reactionary decisions and poor judgment. Add the poor management skills evident in his campaign (pre-Rove)and I'm hard pressed to see him capable of the highest office.

Greed, violence & intolerance

As much as was raked over the coals by the conservative pundits, especially Billo, Keith Olbermann didn't even make the lis?