I had the distinct pleasure of being both a Lakers and a Niners fan during the 80's and I've never quite found the magic in watching professional sports after Montana and Magic retired. The last two minutes of a game were especially exhilerating. No matter what the score was, you knew something special would happen.

People can talk about Elway all they want, but Joe Montana owned the last two minutes of every game he played, and the opposition knew it. 120 seconds of pure execution.

First, Karl Rove "resigns." Then you start seeing a stream of troubled republicans heading out the door. Call me paranoid, but I see a Rovian twist in all this: republicans in tough districts probably won't survive the 2008 election due to their lock-step voting for GWB. So instead the incumbent "retires," and a new candidate is selected who has no voting record and can claim that they woulnd't have supported this or that controversial policy.

This would remove some (not all) of the ammunition in the arsenal of the opposing Democrat. It also doesn't make a difference which republican gets elected, as long as they are "loyal bushies" who will do the bidding of the Mayberry Machiavelli," who has a hotline (if not an executive suite) at the RNC.

To them, it's all about winning at any cost, regardless of the consequences.

Now is as good a time as any. Get outside, recreate and re-energize for the next batch of BS that hits the fan.

Once again, Glenn has laid out the current state of affairs simply but eloquently. Since WWII, our foreign policy has been moving inexorably by degrees towards imperialism to the point where its existence is no longer debated among the foreign policy establishment, only how it should be best managed.

I can't see how anyone who seriously cares about this issue and confirms Glenn's assertions can arrive at a different conclusion. That is why they are afraid to debate on these points, and instead employ irrelevant and false arguments to distract the public.

Does the public have the courage to engage in this brutal but necessary self-examination of our foreign policy from the ground up? My head and heart are at odds on this one.

I've owned a pit bull mix and my father inherited one from a family member. I have also interacted with pit bulls owned by others. From my personal experience, they generally have a sweet temperament, but are fiercely loyal and will defend their master against perceived enemies if not properly trained. But this is true about many breeds of dogs, and different breeds require different levels of training and socialization.

A pit bull that is regularly introduced to social situations and allowed to interact with others will gain an understanding of what constitutes a threat and will not randomly attack people for no reason. To turn these normally affectionate creatures into fighting machines requires an unconscionable amount of physical and psychological abuse. What Michael Vick did sickens me and to my mind, he is no better than a sociopathic rapist, molester or killer.

But it doesn't mean shit until these "former CIA officers" go public in a big way.

I love Sidney Blumenthal's ability to weave the facts into a compelling tale (truth IS stranger than fiction), but many of his articles use unnamed sources, and nothing can be done until these people have the courage to take the stage.

That's the way to do it. The second they state a blatant lie as fact, cut them off and call bullshit. Otherwise, it sets them up for the next lie.

I'm giving MoveOn cash today and will do everything in my power to see that Dianne Feinstein is run out of office. She is a DINO in the worst possible way and is as much of the problem as any Republican.

I honestly think that almost as many Democrat incumbents need to be defeated as Republicans, and if there was a viable 3rd party candidate, I am ready to jump ship because I don't see any hope from the Democrats at this point.

No principle, only politics as usual.

I agree that the Repugs should be made to filibuster every time they threaten it. Keep sessions open through the weekends and holidays. I don't care if it never closes.

Put up bills to cut funding for the WAR (not the troops, like the media mindlessly quotes from GOP talking points) and make them vote no. And if it passes, make Bush veto it. Again and again.

It's time to show beyond a doubt who is for and who is against this war. And then crush them with it in '08.

I gave $100 to MoveOn and told them I would give them another $100 when they ran another ad like Betrayus. The Senate may not like personal attacks, but this and many other issues have been personal for me for a long time.

The questions that Mukasey answered privately for the GOP should be placed front and center during his confirmation hearings and debated extensively. I would imagine his answers will provide additional questions and issues.

I understand the logistics of passing anti-war legislation and the near certainty of a Bush veto. What I am frustrated with is the Democrats inability to even make the Republicans go on record as being against a true political strategy.

The obvious answer is to withhold funding for the WAR (not the troops) and force a real debate on the issues, but it seems that the Democratic leadership does not have faith in its own rhetoric and fears emasculation despite strong poll numbers in their favor.

They should be welcoming threats of filibusters as opportunities to focus attention on the issues. There has not yet been a true debate on the issues.