Personally I did not like the comment Ms. Griffin made about Jesus. I felt badly about it, more like I had been assaulted verbally and was hurt rather than angry. But I agree that she should be entitled to her views and is entitled to express them in the marketplace of ideas. I agree that attempts to suppress such speech are inappropriate if we are to live in a free and open society.

I agree that it is wrong to deny an appointment to a tenured position on the basis of a person's views.

I agree that it is wrong to cancel a play because members of the jewish community might not agree with the views expressed.

But I have to wonder if this principled position is truly tenable now, or has ever been truly tenable in the past. Freedom of expression has always existed within broad but definite limits of societal repugnance. People are not supportive of Holocaust denial, rabid anti-semitism, or many other concepts which threaten commonly accepted ideas of ordinary decency. Always there are stated and unstated limits, although various individuals and groups may view them differently.

As to the remarks about Jesus, I am sure He has heard worse. He has broad shoulders and a desire to forgive remarks like this amongst the many other evils needing forgiveness in this world. I believe that I and his other followers should do likewise, but I do wish Ms. Griffin had not made this unfortunate remark.

I could not bear to listen to the entire remarks Of President Bush last night. It is like listening to Orson Welles' radio broadcast of the War of the Worlds or Comical Ali's daily news summaries of the Mother of All Battles as the U.S. Army rushed to Baghdad in 2003. In other words there is no connection to reality, no realistic analysis and no rational policy behind his remarks.

The United States made a colossal error in invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein. It set off a civil war by its inept occupation and it made many in the muslim world more radical because its actions were clearly not justified.

All of the American casualties in this war were futile and unnecessary, and all the ones to come until the inevitable withdrawl are even more tragic. All this because of the operation of the spin machine creating a war on terror model that is fantasy.

What was that song?

"I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free.And I won't forget the men who fought and died to give that right to me...."

Poor Americans. Poor America!

To end this nonsense decisively all Congress has to do is to reinstate the draft without any deferments for the right wing children of privelege. The speed with which the war culture would collapse would be stunning!

From Glenn's post it seems that Michael Mukasey has at least one attribute that seems to have been lacking in the Bush administration to date - a bedrock belief in the rule of law. This alone is such an extraordinary quality in these troubled times that it makes Mr. Mukasey worthy of the most serious consideration for the post.

Bruce Fein would be the ideal candidate, but his stated opinion that George W. Bush should be impeached to prevent the illegitimate extensions of executive power he has championed from becoming settled precedent would surely rule him out of consideration.

The core difficulty with the concept of enemy combattant status is that there is no way of independently testing the factual basis of the charge. The use of " National Security" to trump the judicial process inevitably sets up an authoritarian system undermining the rights and freedoms of ALL Americans and the very concept of constitutional government and the rule of law. The two concepts are incompatible. To assert a National Security privilege is to move from the rule of law to an essentially unaccountable executive process where an accused has no right but to accept an administative fiat in the disposition of his fate. It is worse than Star Chamber Redux.

In the midst of all this blather American soldiers are dying for nothing in a war which can not be won. At some point the Iraqis themselves are going to have to sort out the political realities of a post invasion Iraq. No doubt the civil war will intensify, but American forcses can not realistically prevent this. Fairly rapid withdrawl is the rational response to the situation and is what most Americans want.

Congress has the power of the purse. The Democrats are in the majority. They can pass reductions to the funding for Iraq and the military in general. No doubt President Bush would veto this sort of legislation. At that point Congress should hold firm, with the Democratic majority refusing to pass the funding Bills that Bush and the Republicans want. At some point President Bush would have to compromise as he stared into the abyss of NO money for Iraq operations.

President Bush has the power to veto legislation and there are enough Republicans to sustain a veto. He does not have the power to pass enabling financial legislation to run the war. If he vetos legislation reducing funding and requiring more rapid withdrawl Congress, THIS Congress with a Democratic majority, can simply refuse to pass the funding he needs. Veto=refusal to pass=impasse= need for Bush to compromise.

This is how the Constitution was set up and how all political freedoms were secured by non violent means. Use of the power of the purse is the clear way forward.

President Bush has had "fun, fun, fun" and now it is time for Congress to "take his Tbird away!"