While in custody during the Nuremberg trials, Nazi war criminal Hermann Goerring was interviewed by a psychologist named Dr. Gustave Gilbert. Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

How many Democratic politicians are former or current "actors"?

I could say something nice, but generally I would want it to be true, as well as nice, and right now, that's fairly impossible. I could come up with something really inane, but what's the point of that?

As far as Krugman goes, it's his job to be critical of Bush, just as it's Brooks' job to be lauditory. It's our job to read both and make up our own minds as to who's right,and who's full of crap.

The terrorists have the "freedom" to torture, but we don't. Boy, it just doesn't seem fair somehow, does it?

The CNN online poll question today is whether you believe in the Loch Ness Monster or not. It's currently 46 to 54. It's not scientific, but I find that to be a stunning ratio nevertheless.

Howse your handicap these days, shooter? Is your golf swing nice and relaxed while you're "keeping it real" for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have a sip of bubbly and a puff of a nice cuban cigar for our boys in the desert, okay? I'm sure they'll appreciate you for it on some level.

ps--How telling that someone who regularly signs off his posts with "tsk," or "heh" would actually have the lack of self-awareness to refer to anyone else as "popmpous."

for the opportunity to do one last thing that will really piss off the majority of Americans.

of cries from readers here that this is only a "partisan witch hunt." It will be great to see him go, finally. Good riddance, Mr. Jefferson.

Even if he loses all of his appeals, he still got off easy. And that goes for the entire Bush Administration, if this is all that comes of this.

is exactly right. Especially if you define "satisfied" as the way Bush supporters seem in regard to the fact that bin Laden is still at large, and we are no closer to capturing him going on six years after 9/11. You guys just simply refuse to hold Bush's feet to the fire over this failure, as well as his laissez faire attitude toward bringing bin Laden to justice. And the only conclusion we can come to is that his supporters are "satisfied" that bin Laden may never be captured or punished for his crimes. Your silence on this issue is deafening.

But getting back to Libby--he deserved much worse. Especially in light of the fact that he was obviously covering for people who will never be charged, i.e., rove and Cheney. At least.

"Remember Richard Clark? Bob Graham? No one listens, no one really cares enough to actually do anything about this.... We have the administration we deserve."

-- mattwa33186

My thoughts exactly.

That quote from Tucker says it all. How can you utter a phrase like that while forming an argument and expect anyone to accept your point? Typical conservative arrogance. Tucker can paint himself into a corner all he wants. His skills amount to preaching to the choir on tv five days a week.

Yes.

The court does not specify whether the prisoner is "unlawful" or not. He is being held without charges, specifically, and he's never been tried nor convicted of anything. That is the point. You cannot hold someone without charges or deny due process like that. If he's guilty, charge him, try him and convict him. If you can't prove anything, you have to let him go. It's the principle upon wich this country was founded. Ironically, it's the very "freedom" Bush claims the terrorists "hate us for" and are "trying to take away from us."