regardless of whether or not the movie is factually accurate. It sounds like it will be a typical "made for tv" movie: poorly written, woodenly acted, and quickly forgotten. Comparing a dramatic rendition like this to documentaries is silly. I think they should air this piece of crap with a periodicly occuring disclaimer and let it die it's rightful death.

and just make whatever claims you want to make--never having to back any of it up with facts--just to suit your own authoritarian agenda. Just pull claims out of thin air. Make shit up. No sources, no facts, just pure wishful thinking. Say it over and over again enough times and it becomes "a point of view." No wonder Republicans hate lawyers. They think that "because nobody's proved such-and-such didn't happen, so that means such-and-such probably happened" passes for logic and proof. What utter nonsense.

We are living through an authoritarian nightmare.

What a person has to do to get fired in this administration.

Where I work, you can get fired for:

--Leaving a Coke can sitting on top of a copy machine.

--Having your cell phone turned on while you're on the clock.

--Typing letters to blogs (sshhhh!!!).

--DOING ONE'S JOB VERY POORLY!

Reasonable people were calling for Rumsfeld's firing years ago. What are they waiting for?

How many respected MSM anchors/journalists have retired or not survived this administration, for various reasons?

Rather.

Koppel.

Brokaw.

Jennings.

Moyers.

And that just off the top of my head.

I think on some level, they all left their jobs exhausted, and disheartened by what was happening in this country. Thankfully, we still have Keith Olbermann who is full of piss and vinegar, and still has lots of fight in him. He's totally having it. I don't think he's going anywhere soon, simply because he's getting ratings, and his competitors are not. He explains it all very well in the Salon interview a few days ago. (Some of this article's letterwriters should read it--their comments suggest they have not.)

If you click on the link, it takes you to a Reuters article. That means Reuters would have been running a photoshopped image. It's not like Tim got this from some mass email and didn't vet or check the info. Stranger things have happened, but if this image was fake, we'd have heard about it by now. Keep that in mind....

All he does is make ridiculous, unsupportable claims. His claims are never supported by quotes, facts, links, etc., because there is no factual basis to those claims. There's nothing there. If he could quote these mysterious "dems" he so often speaks of, maybe he would. He's just blowing smoke,so don't waste your time.

It's one of the few things my neocon brother and I agree about (but for different reasons, of course).

Just because instituting the draft would force Bush into an untenable political position doesn't mean we should do it. It's wrong. It's wrong to force anyone to fight in a war. Ever. If you can't field a volunteer force in adequate numbers to fight your war, then you're fighting for the wrong reasons. Iraq is a perfect example. If this war was ever truly "popular," then young men and women would have been lining up at the recruitment offices. Many would have been turned away. We wouldn't have to be relaxing our enlistment standards. Sure, you can argue that a great number of our troops aren't necessarily "volunteer" in the sense that they signed up out of economic necessity over patriotic duty; but even then, you just can't force a person to fight in a free society. Ever.

come shinin' through....

Yeah, that sounds better.

(But I still ain't fighting.)

you give Allen the benefit of the doubt and say that he's only "extremely racially insensitive"--rather than being outright "racist"--who wants someone who's that out to lunch representing them? I mean, it's one thing for a young teenager to be that way--but for an adult to be THAT racially insensitive--which is a huge stretch anyway--is unacceptable.

"If a democracy is under attack, why not mobilize the whole nation?

If a democracy decides to start a war of aggression, why not share the burden democratically?"

That is about as wrong an interpretation of the situation as I can imagine. Since when did this "democracy" decide to start a war? Our administration decided. And then mislead, cajoled and arm-twisted everyone else who eventually, reluctantly, went along with it. Now over 60% of this democracy is against this war. If over 60% of a Democracy is against something, should we still be doing it?

And "under attack"? What, is this Britain during WWII? I don't think I hear any air-raid sirens blaring... much as Bush and Co. want the terror alerts to serve that purpose.

I was proud to have Ann Richards as my Governor back in the early '90s. I was living in San Francisco by the time she lost to Bush in '94. I remember wondering whow that happened since she was an effective and popular Governor in what was a red state (shifting to blue). As history now tells us, we have Karl Rove to thank for that. Texas' loss in '94, the world's loss now.