I find it interesting that people are referring back to Jackson and Grant to sorta kinda defend Bush. I always think that Jackson's Indian policies make him such a repulsive human being that I'd almost forgotten his contempt for the concepts of separation of powers and checks and balance.

But Jackson never compromised the security of the country the way Bush has with his impulsive, incompetent foreign policy (to say nothing of the rest of the world), and the sheer spinelessness of the rubber stamp Republican congress has made Bush's contempt for the Constitution more dangerous than Jackson's, and a longer term threat (See Alito, Samuel, and Executive, Unitary (theory of).

As to the poster who cited Grant's corruption and cronyism.....res ipsa laughs its own ass off.

It really is time for those few grown ups left in the Republican party--Hagel, Lugar, Warner, Snowe, Specter--to join hands with Harry Reid and a few others, get Cheney to retire, have Junior stand in the corner for the next two years, and start mitigating the damage done by this dangerously stupid little man, and his equally stupid helpers Cheney and Rice.

the fact that someone like "Mary Smith" can give birth to seven children (or that Brittany Spears' ex can father however many he has, etc etc and lamentably etc) rather puts an end to the notion of "intelligent design", doesn't it?

thanks for your honesty, even if it was depressing

I actually (and I'm a good liberal) feel sorry for Ann Coulter. It's disturbing that there are people who take her seriously, but she's obviously a deeply disturbed individual. shudder to think what must have happened to make her what she is now.

As for "her plan" and liberals weeping over Iraqi civilian deaths, she made her comments about killing all "these people" before George W Bush managed to confuse the country about who did what on September 11, so there wouldn't have been any Iraqi civilian deaths under her "plan". Just to point out that even when she quotes herself, this confused fountain of indiscriminate, redirected rage doesn't know what the hell she's talking about.

sounds to me like the father is depressed, has fixated/transferred his depression on Iraq (did nobody else catch that part?) and is thinking about his boy coming home in a box. Isn't that kind of maudlin fanstasy symptomatic of depression? Hell, what isn't?

And I agree with the posters who said that the old man's midlife depression aside, Junior needs to strike out on his own.

"Barack Obama is the kind of person you'd like to have a beer with"

Now, I thought this had become a fairly toxic phrase after the personality campaign of 2000 brought us terrorist attacks and a military quagmire. Maybe Luntz is smart and using it on purpose, or maybe he's not as smart (about language) as he thinks he is.

I seem to recall Gephart proudly standing next to GWB, with a great big smile on his face, as our nekkid Chimperor signed the unconstitutional authorization for this misbegotten war.

Do we really need to discuss Lieberman?

You can go away now Ed.

Um.... I don't have my copy of the Constitution handy, but as I recall, it's pretty, clear: The president has the power to declare defensive war in case of attack, only congress can declare offensive war, which I would think includes preemption or prevention or whatever formulation the AEI has come up with most recently.

This is the closest Lieberman has come in six years to saying something at least morally consistent with his support for the war.

I opposed this war from the first "Fuck Saddam! We're taking him out!" in Newsweek (I believe that was September, '02?), but there is, unfortunately, no way to make the people who supported, and even more to the point, still support this misbegotten adventure. Either we pay for this now, or our kids and grandkids pay for it, with interest, later on.

That's the noble, above-the-fray side of me speaking. The schadenfreude part of me is relishing the idea that this is gonna cost Lieberman all that Hannity-love he's been feeding his ego on for so long.

We're not laughing at soldiers "dumbly following orders". We're sharing their frustrations at officers and commanders, all the way up the ladder to the Pentagon and the Oval Office, at halfwit superiors, as near as I can judge from the evidence on the ground and in this article, the higher the rank the dumber the commander, we're sharing their frustration at being ordered to complete their missions with inadequate equipment, from unarmored vehicles to inadequate medical and psychological care, to deflated soccer balls.

Your attempt to twist this story around, trying to turn this metaphorical story about the incompetence and indifference of commanders into an example of civilian contempt for the military, is nothing short of malicious demogoguery.

You should be ashamed.

The only remotely positive thing about this announcement is it gives me an excuse to borrow the late, great and much lamented Miss Molly Ivins eloquently succinct judgment on Camille Paglia:

Shees! What an asshole!

skimming through the messages posted, readers seem about twenty to one disgusted by the return of this narcissistic screecher and her convoluted prose. Yet the Editor's Choice letters are six-to-one in favor.

You guys hire somebody from the RNC to read through your letters?

He forgot Pierce!