means a harsh discordance of sounds. By definition, moaning is neither harsh nor discordant, but low and inarticulate.

Lesson? Don't use words you don't know or understand the meaning of. It makes you sound stupid.

Oh, wait...I just realized who the author of the letter was...too late.

... (or something, anyway) our Shooter242 has:

Isn't that better than just clearing out and leaving the ME to the "killing sands" like leaving Vietnam preceded the "killing fields"?

As Shooter242 well knows, the "killing fields" took place in Cambodia, not Vietnam. After a secret bombing campaign that according to various estimates killed anywhere from hundreds of thousands of Cambodians to near-Pol-Pot totals. Strangely enough, the surviving bombees resented this tactic. Soreheads that they were, they didn't much care for the fact that their military government owed its rise to power and continued existence to the foreigners who were dropping the bombs. Essentially, we recruited Pol Pot's army for him.

And guess what? After we cleared out, it was the victorious North Vietnamese who finally ended that murderous regime. A regime which in its final years (that is, after the worst of Pol Pot's butchery) was supported by -- wait for it --the dollars and diplomacy of the U.S. government, during the reign of St. Ronald Reagan.

But let's say that in some alternate universe -- where the American people had the collective will to feed their children into an unending meatgrinder, and bury the survivors and their great-grandchildren under a mountain of debt (i.e. Shooter's Utopia) -- we don't clear out. Do we shift all the troops from Vietnam to Cambodia, or expand the military commitment? That's a couple of scenarios from Hell. (Though I'm certain Newtie and Shootie could come up with something, after several consecutive all-night Cheetos and Big K Cola binges.)

Back to the quagmire already in progress.

Ok, Shooter, I'll bite: If by not leaving Iraq, we're preventing a bloodbath, how will we know when it's safe to leave? I mean, even if the Surge succeeds beyond Kagan's wildest dreams, and Shi'a and Sunni politicians daily interrupt legislating the Privatized Paradise to join hands in a circle and sing "Kumbayah", how can you be really certain they're not just biding their time, still itching to settle old scores?

How many generations will we have to re-educate?

Yes, the fact that the dollar is constantly undermined by practices guaranteed by economics to lead to recession implies that anyone who recognizes this fact would prefer to not have a dollar.

*rolls eyes*

Thanks, EJ. It still has the stuff in it about surveilling anyone outside the U.S. (U.S. person or not). Surrendering your U.S. civil rights at the water's edge used to be because the other country didn't have good rule of law.

And I'm still not convinced they couldn't follow you back for the duration of the warrant, save the tapes for later, and pretend they didn't know you came back to the U.S.

Otherwise, I do like the sunset clause, and the very specific new delineation of new powers, rather than the "carve out".

Or, we can repudiate the dept.

Yes, it is true that we can never repay our debt. This was not the case before Republicans took control in 2000.

The interest on our debt now exceeds the national debt, which means even if we had a perfectly balanced budget tomorrow, we would never, ever get out of debt.

It is hard to imagine what will come of the situation, never in history has debt been leveraged to such a degree on such a scale.

With the decline in the American dollar, it might be better to insist on Canadian in the near future.

Hubert H. Humphrey who was LBJ's VP was called the happy warrior for his campaign style, not for being war-like. Even though I would have tried to strangle LBJ in those days, my first campaign work was for HHH. If we had won, the history of this nation would be (OK, perhaps) a lot better. He was a man that would have ended the war sooner rather than later and was a decent chap to boot. (comparatively speaking)

FISA legislation and a bill related to the Minnesota bridge.

Live on C-span: http://www.cspan.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS

(They're discussing the bridge at the moment.)

Thanks ondolette - I haven't had a chance to actually read the bill yet.

A couple of days ago, Gen. Mixon was a guest on "Brian and the Judge" and spoke against any move to "beat a hasty retreat because of politics." At the time, I felt that this was an innapropriate comment for a flag officer to make and now that I've read your article and looked back at the number of officers who have appeared on right-wing radio shows over the last month, I see that the military really is trying sell us on the war.

AMITY writes ". But let's not forget that, all the horseshit notwithstanding, some of the earliest, steadiest, and most vocal opposition to this administration's flawed security and military policies has been from the military establishment itself. "

I didn't realize how extensive this was until I read Thomas Rick's FIASCO. Too bad the "librul" MSM didn't pick up on it.

Does anyone know of a link to complete video (or audio only) of Glenn's portion of the YKos panel discussion? I'd lost the feed at the same time as so many others and had to go do other things. Thanks,

... It is hard to imagine what will come of the situation, never in history has debt been leveraged to such a degree on such a scale.

When the end comes, it will be swift and devastating. There are some who think we have to continue on the path of empire to force others to prop us up by loaning us money, but that will never work for long. Hell, there are 6 billion of them and only 300 million of us.

The cashier who checked the wife and I out at the grocery store recalled that $25 dollars would feed her family for a week in 1979 but it would barely buy a meal today. The people can feel it, even if they do not know what bastards caused it.

My question is where has the 'watchdog press' been on this issue; it is certainly part of the cost of our wars.