After all, no one, even Mohammed Dynomite is advocating that Sudan be invaded.

I'm not so sure of that. I can't tell for sure what he's advocating, but "no tolerance" means taking action, and I'm kind of dubious that he's advocating donating to Amnesty International, or any other rational or reasonable approach.

I'm kind of amused that someone said the left is finally waking up. The left has been all over this shit for decades. It's the right which only dredges this crap up when they want to eliminate rights, torture, invade, and/or otherwise abuse people.

Let's see, reported rapes up by 24% while punishments double? At least they're catching a higher percentage, then.

Meh. It's an opinion-based org. Of course it's going to see things from a given perspective. That's kind of it's purpose.

If we can get the Democrats to fund the troops and Bush to actually [i]veto funding the troops[/i], we're pretty much going to end any credibility for the Republicans to make that tired old line of attack.

"Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

"Pfff, heck no."

You are like Jon Stewart. Fake news.

I've heard of damning someone with faint praise, but I've never before seen such a great example of praising someone with faint damnation. I'll take Jon Stewart's honestly fake news over the "real" nonsense any day.

At which point does Bush's word become law? (Well, not like it can. But they MAY try, mayn't they?)

That was called signing statements.

Now watch the Republicans block funding to the troops. Mm-hmm. Support the troops, my ass.

Joe, Al Qaida wanted us in Iraq and wants us to stay in Iraq.

I find it interesting but unsurprising that Muslim groups protested the ruling. The people who want to use Islamophobia to justify atrocities like the invasion of Iraq commonly ask questions like, "If there are reasonable Muslims, where are their voices?" Their words are spoken, but you're not listening.

It has also been claimed that Islam is the most powerful anti-progressive force in the world today. Islam, at its fundamentalist core, is arguably anti-progressive. So is fundamentalist Christianity, I'm afraid. Which is more powerful? Fundamentalist Islam is represented by people hiding in caves and firing rockets and bombs from the shadows. Fundamentalist Christianity is represented by, just for starters, the President of the United States. I think the fundamentalist Christians are more powerful by a landslide, and represent a greater (and certainly more successful) threat to progressive values.

How about we stop portraying Rove as some evil boogy man and focus on important issues facing Americans.

I think that having our government run by "evil boogy men" is an important issue facing Americans. They are a cause of the mess in Iraq, the incompetence in responding to Katrina, the bourgeoning deficit, various corruption cases, environmental degradation, the failure to adequately stem worldwide terrorism, and so on and so forth. I really don't think we can successfully address any of the important issues facing Americans without tackling the "evil boogy men" at the top.

OK so show me your past posting where you directly challenged the mainstream media slimings of Al Gore in real time (which were lazily just extracted from RNC spin points).

She posted a link in the article you're responding to. Or do you expect her Salon blog - started this week - to contain such a post? It looks to me like your urge to criticize does not have any possible refutation.

You are completely right in the short term, but what about twenty plus years down the line? -- Victoria L.

If you believe in the merit of a set of values, then you have to believe that exemplifying those values is a good way forward. I think a good way to fight fundamentalist Islam is to fight fundamentalist Christianity; the two support and feed off each other (as memes). In the long run, I believe that liberal values can assimilate Muslims, as they have in the U.S. and parts of Europe; it's just a better way of life. Of course, mass migrations make such things difficult and time consuming, but since you're talking in generations, so am I.

In contrast, while war and hypocrisy are exported from Washington (i.e., anti-progressive stances) radical Islam will flourish, as we're seeing right now. We really don't support civil rights and Democracy abroad, and in fact we're undermining them (torture, secret CIA prisons, Guantanamo, the farce of occupying a "Democracy" whose people want us out by a substantial majority, our support of the various Middle Eastern dictatorships, and so on). With no support of democratic values to turn to, people look to other sources of succor.

So, no filibuster. They're going to have to reconcile the House and Senate versions, though. Nonetheless, with both the House and the Senate having passed reasonably similar bills, it looks like it goes to Bush. Given that the Republicans could have stopped it in the Senate and didn't, what are the odds that Bush doesn't veto it, either? Perhaps he'll write some B.S. signing statement. Perhaps he won't sign it at all and let it default in. Because, it looks like maybe even the Republicans have seen the writing on the wall and are looking at this as a chance to pass the buck and let the Democrats take the blame.