democracy isn't just voting for leaders, that's the least of it. democracy means choosing policies and laws presented as referenda, often presented by citizen groups through the initiative process.

bad people get into the presidency, and wreak havoc on the nation. that's because the president has the powers of a king.

the cure is democracy.

Bigguns said:

“When will you repent of your Bush voting. Bush tortured because of you. Bush invaded because of you. Bush borrowed because of you. Bush crippled the American economy because of you. He couldn't have done these things without your votes.”

Bush won and had my vote: twice.

He has kept this country, and you, safe for seven years.

Now for the economy put the blame where it belongs: on Dodd and Frank who opposed efforts to reign in Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae.

What's past is past.

...on whose watch was 9/11? thank you.

You don't have any big boy panties, do you?

And Bush hasn't kept America safe. It's the economy. It's always the economy. Strongmen come and go, but what kills countries isn't terrorism: it's the economy. And Bush has crippled America's economy.

You think you're safe? Citi laid off 50,000 workers today. Detroit's Big Three are teetering. Tens of thousands of workers will be laid off tomorrow. And you think you're safe? And you perseverate about Mr. Ayers? Aye-aye-aye! No wonder you don't have big boy panties. You're not a big boy.

What's striking, as someone who was there and politically involved and perceptive, is that Ayers' current politics embody the same left liberalism that drove the Weatherman faction of SDS. Then it was the delusory politics of despair; now it's the "yes we can" politics of delusion. In those days, it arose from their opposition to the U.S. war in Indochina; today it's the "hope" that Obama will be successful at refurbishing the behavior of the same imperialism, even though for him this means "refocusing" the current war into Afghanistan. However heroic the Weatherfolks tried to be - they were among those who openly demonstrated for military victory for the DRV/NLF in Vietnam - and how important it was to defend them against government repression, they were still just New Leftists with a kick.

Fact checking: interview Walter Shapiro (as well as one of the chosen letter writers) thinks Nixon was reacting to - egged on - by Weatherman and their like. Excuse me, but the Weatherman faction of SDS didn't emerge as a separate organization until the latter half of 1969, and didn't really go underground until the end of 1969 into 1970. Nixon took office in January 1969 as a Republican in the party that had nominated conservative Barry Goldwater four years earlier. His and Kissinger's war strategy, including the bombing campaign, were well under way by the time Ayers and company turned adventurist. The only help Nixon got - and needed - from (most of) the left - especially the larger Communist and Socialist Workers Parties - was keeping the anti-war movement both at home and among soldiers within Democratic Party politics.

Patg,

Was not there a bipartisan commission on 9/11?

Hawkpsd,

A statute of limitations for terrorists? Tell that to the relatives of the dead of 9/11! Besides murder does not have a statute of limitations.

Scorpio69er,

So, if Reagan was an accomplice of Hussein, should Bush have done the same?

Amity,

You said:

“Walter Shapiro's interview elicits a personal, even intimate, response from Bill Ayers without veering into the mushy territory of irrelevant overdisclosure — and without letting Ayers off the hook without first accounting for his past.”

Really? Did Shapiro hold Ayers accountable? This article was an intent of whitewashing for both Ayers and Obama but mainly for Obama’s benefit.

You all are nurturing the beast that will devour all of you. You will see how straight forward Gibbs is in his new post at the White House.

re: So, if Reagan was an accomplice of Hussein, should Bush have done the same?

Thanks for acknowledging that Reagan was an accomplice of Hussein. Next you'll be admitting his role in Iran-Contra and that he didn't bring down the Soviet Union.

Now, in your question, you present a false choice; i.e. do what Reagan and the U.S. had done for years in supporting Hussein or invade Iraq, as though there was no alternative, which is preposterous.

As to what Bush did: He took this country into a war based upon demonstably false premises.

Here are those premises, laid out by the liar-in-chief himself:

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat

EXCERPTS:

“The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today - and we do…a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions…surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons…Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas…Saddam Hussein’s links to international terrorist groups…Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade…Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases…September the 11th…Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction…The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” — his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons…Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists…America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud…Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon…”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html