Of course you let him visit. and if you're smart, you ask any of the 9/11 families to guide him, if they wish. and you invite any other leaders to join in, if they wish.

It's a no-brainer, and a great opportunity.

but instead, they play it the worst possible way they can. These guys are totally--totally--totally inept in foreign policy and statecraft.

And Hillary is right there with them. Let's see what the other candidates say. Let's see if any of them have a clue. This is a very interesting little test for them.

They never do the negative by half. Currently projections suggest we'll see 153 threatened fillibusters this session. Not genuine ones where they have to put their mouth's to work, just threatened ones.

The most we've seen from any session since the 1960s was 58 in the 106th session (I think). Quite an accomplishment on their part.

Pity that'll be their only claim to fame.

why the Democrats don't at least make them work for their fillibuster.

In the good old days, fillibusters were schemes that took days and days to perform. While they were going on, there was furious armtwisting going on on the floor and in the cloakroom in an attempt to get enough folks to change their vote to actually break the fillibuster.

Nowadays, all someone has to do is threaten a filibuster, get one vote to verify that there are not enough votes at that time to break it and the Senate capitulates to the minority.

Harry, make them work for their fillibusters.

Next, when a bill comes to you from this administration, like the current FISA Amnesty deal, let it sit on the shelf while the GOP is fillibustering and don't schedule it for the floor until it's as ripe as a 6 month-old melon (or one of Shooter's comments here). IOW, make them pay for their obstructionism.

When you're done with that, tell Leiberman to find a smaller office and staff because he no longer has any committee assignments out of your office and won't need a large office and staff.

Maybe he could share an office with Sen. Craig.

Did I say office?

I meant to say that Leiberman can share a stall with Sen, Craig, not an office.

Coops!

You meant, Poops?

You meant, Flops?

You saying Um are Big Flops at the bottom?

'Um are Flops in politico's moo-cow stalls!

Quacks flops!

Ahmadinejad @ ground zero

Of course you let him visit. and if you're smart, you ask any of the 9/11 families to guide him, if they wish. and you invite any other leaders to join in, if they wish.

It's a no-brainer, and a great opportunity.

but instead, they play it the worst possible way they can. These guys are totally--totally--totally inept in foreign policy and statecraft.

No, it's not ineptness. It's a personality disorder. The only type of "diplomacy" they can manage is a "in-your-face"/"FY". It's not like they considered the options, and reflected on it and decided that their approach was best. It's just a reptilian brain(stem) at work. See, e.g., Sh**ter....

Cheers,

I listened to Michael Reagan while stuck in traffic yesterday, and you should have heard the neanderthals talking about how nice it would be for Ahmedenijad to have an 'accident' <*wink-wink-chuckle-chuckle*> while he was here. Other more-or-less sober (and I'm not sure which) people suggested that we let him in and then lock him up.... <*sheesh*> Eedjits.

Cheers,

If you'd care to, send me your addie

bamage02[at]yahoodotcom

so I can drop you the occassional line.

Sorry, GG, for turning this into the "personals" section...

LAWLESSNESS ...1,2,3.

another fine post, Glenn.

It seems to me, however, that the first line of defense against the Bush Adm.'s blatant Lawlessness (or anyone elses, really) is the 'Law' (ie. enforcement). In this case, the Attorney General.

I doubt the 'pending lawsuits against AT&T' would be 'one of the very few remaining avenues (though not the only one) for obtaining a court order ruling as to whether the NSA spying program - which President Bush ordered for five years at least - was illegal', IF there had been (or could be?) an Attorney General who considered such activities illegal.

Which brings me to the new AG nominee, Judge Mukasey. After a cursery review of his writings on the subject, especially his WSJ op-ed referenced in prior post, I think it's a mis-characterzation to suggest Judge Mukasey would demonstrate a 'willingness to defy the president' in such matters or consider it illegal. In fact, I suspect where the Bush Adm. is blatant and overt in its disdain for law and due process wrt 'the threat this nations faces', Judge Mukasey would grant the 'procedures' and sembalence of due process (albeit,with much stricter discloser rules) and then invalidate the result in deference to arbitrary exective authority in the name of 'national security'.

In short, even if FISA is revisted and due process restored, what will it matter if the AG is unwilling to enforce it?

As an aside, it's good to see you, BEbop-o! Glenn was beginning to bug me.

bah.

I'm very Glad to see that you're back

'cause You keep this blog right on track

Ol Celery was good and

Shooter's brain is of wood

But bebop helps us all understood.

Thanks. Take care of that sinus infection, please.

It's a Dell XPS200. It normally runs Windows XP. The software I was talking about boots freeDOS, and then runs the Watcom DOS extender, before loading, so it could be doing anything internally, the fact that it runs over DOS is not a limiting factor. What I meant by "mounting" was that on boot, the software asks if I need USB drivers. If I say no, the keyboard and mouse are accessed via DOS so the machine's BIOS functions provide access to them. If I say yes, then the software takes over all the USB control via drivers, thinking they are all storage resources, and in the process, overrides BIOS control of the mouse and keyboard, so it freezes waiting for keyboard input that never comes because it has overridden it.