He wants to throw the bums out. He wants to fix a broken system. He doesn't want any talk of partisan politics. Did I miss anything, Dounia?

Any concrete suggestions on how you are going to achieve this? LWM

It's the partisans who want no talk of criticizing their party or the policies of its leaders, past and present. It gets tiresome being told to shut up about the Dems. I won't.

As for the rest, either it gets achieved collectively, or it doesn't. I'm sure you understand that, so try to move your questioning to a different level, we might then begin a dialogue. Mocking me is hardly better than telling me to shut up.

Forgive me for not having noticed your posting history attesting to your independent mind; do I take it you are no partisan then, just that you believe the current system will correct itself if we just keep playing by its rules, within its confines?

-- Dounia

Your sarcasm cloaked as honest questions is tiring.

Earlier in the above post you made a remark about also wanting to throw out the Democrats as well as Republicans. I've posted a number of times about Blue America. That would be an example of my being behind - to some degree - the same causes as you are. But, to me, that doesn't mean eliminating the Democratic Party altogether. My support and mentions of Blue America stand as an example that we are in agreement on something, if you would only knock it off with your 'all or nothing' assumptions about my positions. Whether your assumptions are sarcastic or sincere, they are incorrect.

... of Salon (War Room) offers a little more on the destruction of the CIA tapes.

Why does this all sound terribly familiar?

Sounds like the Incompetence Dodge, to me.

Unfortunately, the Dem leadership is implicated in all of this up to their eyeballs.

No wonder they hate us; we're the only ones calling them on it.

He wants to throw the bums out. He wants to fix a broken system. He doesn't want any talk of partisan politics. Did I miss anything, Dounia?

Any concrete suggestions on how you are going to achieve this?

more Jokeline

But it wasn't just the intelligence community that had been trying to prevent the war hawks in the Administration from bombing Iran. The Secretaries of State and Defense and the leaders of the uniformed military had decided that diplomacy was the best way to deal with an admittedly hostile and dangerous foe in Tehran. Almost exactly a year ago, after the firing of Donald Rumsfeld, the President met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the "Tank," the Pentagon's secure facility. Bush asked the Chiefs about attacking Iran. He was told that a bombing campaign could do severe damage to Iran's military and nuclear facilities, but the Chiefs said they were opposed to such a strike because of the probable "blowback." The Iranians, Bush was told, could make life very difficult for the U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq. They could shut off the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, thereby creating a global economic crisis. And they could use the threat of Iran-sponsored terrorist attacks on the American homeland

At about the same time, a new NIE on Iran was meandering through the intelligence community. A senior U.S. intelligence official told me last week that the report was prepared to say with a "moderate" degree of certainty that Iran had stopped its nuclear-weapons program, but the information wasn't very conclusive. That finding would have put the U.S. in the same camp as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — deeply concerned about the Iranian efforts to enrich uranium but skeptical about the regime's efforts to fashion that uranium into a bomb.

Iran's Nukes: Now They Tell Us?

By Joe Klein, Thursday, Dec. 06, 2007

Do you think Joe Klein will ever consider actually attributing a source to a set of asserted facts? Especially now, that he's received such public attention about the accuracy of his reporting about FISA. Without EW's sleuthing we probably would not have come to recognize Klein's source in his FISA article as crazy Pete Hoekstra. No! Klein attributes with no more specificity that claiming "Republicans believe" and "Democrats believe." From reading Klein’s column, it seems all news in Washington is without attribution. Without attribution there is no context. Do you think Klein bothered to get corroborating evidence or did he just sidle up to one insider and steno the conversation, all attempts to corroborate or further legitimize the assertion non existent?

Jokeline: Repeating, without attribution, single-source?, and specious claims on-line and in print for Time Magazine…. because he loves politics.

I hadn't found that. I instead ran across some other link saying that messages wouldn't be forwarded directly to (I think the term used was) "personalities"...

When I was in college and the war was in Vietnam, the term "co-opted" came into use to describe just what seems to have happened to Jay Rockefeller and Jane Harman. The sly authoritarians let gullible opponents in on some secret stuff and maybe share a little bit of power and some interesting tidbits that are useful to the opponents, and the former opponents are quickly on board or at least too compromised to speak up.

It happened to me when I was in college, not on the war but a minor issue, and I saw through it in a few weeks. I and the issue were minor enough that I wasn't compromised by the tidbit, which was only a complement to me from a dean.

It is all relevant but what is most relevant is putting pressure on the one man who is in the cat-bird seat, Mulkasey. Your post wasn't doing that. Your post was basically about throwing the bums out. My stance is f'k a bunch of that and just deal with the issue at hand. kitt

Exactly, although I want the bums out, and brought to justice, not just the Republicans, the Dems too. You want to work the system as it is now, presumably because you still see value in it. I don't. I believe the system is broken, and must be repaired first, it's been unresponsive to the people too long, on too many fundamental issues.

As for the party loyalty thing, that comes from what now appears to me to be a knee jerk response from some quarters to any criticism of the Democratic Party (in terms of delivering results), particularly of Bill Cliton's policies and those of his wife. We are generally told to shut up because the "GOP is much worse" and/or because we "feed into Republican memes".

Forgive me for not having noticed your posting history attesting to your independent mind; do I take it you are no partisan then, just that you believe the current system will correct itself if we just keep playing by its rules, within its confines?