Hey, William--

You know what the two of us have in common? In addition to being Salon.com subscribers, who FINANCIALLY SUPPORT the site we use and enjoy everyday, neither of us has ever been BANNED from Glenn Greenwald's blog for obnoxious behavior and being a disruptive influence. Neither of us comes here unwelcome and uninvited every day, for the sole purpose of grabbing attention and hijacking threads, desperately feeding a pathological need for persecution and attention. Someone would have to be a sorry sack indeed to come here day after day--for FREE--and shout FIRE in a crowded movie theater, just to see who it pisses off.

People became so frightened and bewildered after 9/11 that Rove's brand of hokum actually made sense and they found it comforting. It's amazing to read that now and see what nonsense it really is, and then realize how many people bought into it so thoroughly.

Why doesn't Tiberius show any anger toward his own party for letting those responsible for 9-11 to get away so they can plan more attacks in the future?

I ask the right-wingers who show up around here some form of that same question all the time, and all I get is evasive non-answers, or no answer at all. Tiberius is an excellent barometer for the level of right-wing anger and frustration. Their party had unprecedented power, and now have nothing but failure to show for it. The only ammo folks like tiberius have left is spastic little outbursts like the one he posted earlier.

That's Quote of the Decade!!

Bravo! You make some great points that need to be stated.

If a Democrat votes with the President on an issue, I choose to believe that he or she actually agrees with the President on that issue. People act like Lieberman is the only Democrat who ever agrees with the president, but on many issues, I think there are a few more than just him. I think, especially with folks like Mary Landrieu, it’s not a failure of courage, it’s just a matter of seeing eye-to-eye with Bush. It’s really not that far-fetched. I’m still angry with how some Senators vote, but for different reasons than many other pissed off Democratic voters.

must very very disappointing for all the trolls who come here every day and claim that all we know how to do is complain about Bush.

That being said, I can already anticipate the "conventional Beltway wisdom" response to Glenn's post, that "the lefty fringe" is defined as "anyone who disapproves of Bush AND the Democratic congress." It's nonsense, of course, but I can already hear it...

until Ann Coulter, or some other right wing "pundit" suggests that we just "nuke" Iraq already and get the whole thing over with.

For what it's worth, I think Tim's headline was a paraphrase of Malaki's point (rather than his own opinion, necessarily), which is that the Bush administration has no right to complain, given that they're responsible for this whole mess, and our count of dead and wounded comes nowhere near their count of dead and wounded. Not to mention the exodus of people who've already left Iraq, and the destruction of property, etc.

when you know nothing about that part of history to begin with. "We" left Vietnam early? Ha, that's a good one. Maybe had he been there back in the day, that comment might mean something to somebody. But it means nothing at all to anybody, of course.

I love when Bush invokes the "warnings" of people like bin Laden. One minute, he's a liar who can't be trusted or certainly negotiated with, but when he says something that can be twisted into a politically convenient scare tactic, boy, we need to heed every syllable as though it's the gospel truth, don't we?

"And I insisted that their publication amounted to amazing hypocrisy, since Salon refused to give Arnold the tiniest bity[sic] of credit for his efforts to solve the human rights problems in California prisons."

That has to be the biggest red herring I've read in a long time. First of all, what does Arnold have to do with Abu Graib? Secondly, are you saying that Salon has to investigate and uncover every instance of prison abuse and torture in the world, to avoid being "amazing[ly]" hypocritical in your mind? That's ridiculous.

that one of the more popular Republican candidates so far was an actor who hadn't officially declared. How much does that say about his supporters?

and that's all you can see, then everything that everyone else does is political, too. The only people he knows how to argue with are imaginary strawmen. The '04 debates proved that.

This all sounds like an episode of "Big Love." It's really saying something when Bush administration officials are so slimey and so underhanded and cynical, that they make Ashcroft seem noble. That's how far-out they really are.

So Larry Craig is batshit crazy. Who would have guessed? Other than the fact that he digs anonymous sex in public bathrooms, who would've known?

--I consider myself to be a left-leaning liberal, and a card-carrying member of the ACLU;

--I could bench press my own weight in the 7th grade; and never once had to surrender my lunch money against my will to anyone;

--I also shot and killed a bird once (though I've never shot a human while trying to shoot and kill a bird, natch).

A split cover--on the left, a collage of Republicans. On the right, a large photo of the governator from "Conan the Barbarian."

The title:

"Truth is Stranger than Fiction."

Or simply:

"Truth and Fiction."

Or,

"Separated at Birth? Not!"