What would your reaction be if Clinton were president during 9/11, went to war in Afghanistan, failed to get Osama, then went to war in Iraq to stop Saddam because he had WMD's, then it turns out he had no WMD's and then due to POLICY errors the war in Iraq which he claimed would only take about 6 months, and be paid for by Iraqi oil dragged out to 4 years and costing over 3000 American soldier's lives, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilian lives, several trillion dollars, and not only shows no sign of coming to an end anytime soon also turned Iraq into a haven for al-queda which it wasn't before as well as a breeding and training ground for countless terrorists for generations to come? Oh, and Al Gore shot an old man in the face?

(I could of course go one. Sad to say the above description doesn't even cover all of Bush's misdeeds)

-- FilthyHarry

Needless and wasteful war filling the pockets of war profiteers? They'd still be on board.

On the other hand, try asking them what they'd do if a Democrat blatantly stole the Presidential election and then systematically went about installing communism in the U.S. That's pretty much the right wing nightmare equivalent of what us "libs" have gone through for the last almost 7 years. Maybe you'd actually get an honest answer.

I also can't find anything positive to say about Hitler. I guess that makes me a sufferer of Hitler Derangement Syndrome. As a result, everything bad I say about Hitler must be viewed in that light - as coming from a crazy, crackpot who is deranged by her hatred of all things Hitler. Thus, it's likely all untrue.

Right? I mean, that's the point of the BDS rhetoric, right? To question the credibility of critics?

Just because someone can't think of anything positive to say about someone doesn't mean that the person isn't putting forth credible and truthful criticism. A person may adore W, but the 24% have to at least acknowledge the fact that it doesn't require a mental deficiency to not love him.

(sorry, folks, for those of you would invoke Hitler, I have higher standards for Americans)

-- McGee

For the record (and before some winger jumps all over me), you are right - I was invoking Hitler as the worst of the worst and was not comparing Bush to Hitler in my earlier post.

I was merely illustrating how stupid Shooter's rule was (i.e., that his rule stops working when the discussion is about someone of whom Shooter - presumably - disapproves).

And is anyone shocked by what a far-right rubber stamp Mukasey's turning out to be.

Thanks, Chuck and Dianne. He's clearly no Alberto Gonzales.

-- kovie

I'm shocked - shocked! - that he's completely the opposite of the picture they painted of him as independent, law abiding and unafraid to stand up to Bush.

Chuck and Dianne are absolute failures.

It's a privilege and a delight to follow along.

-- William Timberman

I was just thinking the same thing. We are so lucky to have Glenn (and FDL) collecting and interpreting information for us and, not only that, to have him be so responsive to our concerns and issues. Thanks Glenn! Also, thanks to Kovie for your input.

According to Update XI (I think?), we all have to start calling (read: harassing) Reid's office.

..That many of us believe that, if the roles were reversed and it was Democrats with the huge number of filibusters, the press would be incessantly referring to them as "obstructionist." There would be no defense of the filibusters based on how/when the Republican House Leader was calling for cloture.

When there was a Republican majority in Congress, the Dems WERE incessantly referred to as obstructionist by the MSM, and they hardly reached this number of filibusters.

And, I won't get started on the fact that they haven't mentioned that Bush only vetoes anything if its a Democratic congress passing it. Certainly his perogative, but if the Dems were obstructionist, by the same measure, isn't he?

Oops, last post should have said "There would be no defense of the filibusters based on how/when the Republican Senate Majority Leader was calling for cloture."

I also just contributed to Dodd's campaign. I feel like I'm training a puppy with positive reinforcement, but at least I feel like I'm doing something.

Per the email I received from Glenn and Jane Hamsher a few minutes ago, they agree that it's a way to move forward on denying immunity.

I have to admit, whatever his reasons and whether it makes me a Pollyanna or not, I'm inspired by what Dodd did and his responsiveness to the demands of those who sought his help. Harry Reid sounds like a bitter, old hag by comparison.

So then, you're saying that maybe the "9/11 truth" movement/conspiracy theory about the government is a conspiracy by the government to make it look like the government conspired so as to divert the attention from the incompetence of the government? Or something like that? ;o)

-- Kitt

South Park had a similar plot, but the government's "reasoning" was different:

"Stan, Kyle, and the Hardly family congregate at the Hardly house as the Bush Administration arrives, and eventually admits that the government wasn't behind 9/11. He explains that the government actually runs all the websites that claim they were responsible, making the conspiracy theories actually a government conspiracy themselves. The point, Bush explains, is that, since one-fourth of Americans are "retarded" and will believe conspiracies, the government wants them to believe that it is all-powerful and could get away with the worst terrorist attack in history, while they tell the other 75% of the country the truth---that 9/11 was caused (in Stan's words) by "a bunch of pissed off Muslims."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Urinal_Deuce

What you're saying, Glenn, is that you're now a Huckabee supporter? ;)