I that little guy in there was adnoto, but I'm not so sure. Something tells me it's actually Sinnard. I think adnoto is taller. See what you think.

Is That All There Is?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTpFUT-lxls

"@Rufus, Adnoto

Why didn't Sheehan post that message on DailyKos herself? That's right, she got banned from there when she made it clear that she was going to challenge Pelosi. Why was she banned? Because, you guessed it, she was challenging a Democrat and DailyKos is all about the superduper duper strategy of "ELECTING DEMOCRATS" and Sheehan can't be rocking the boat!

http://cindysheehan.dailykos.com/

-- Chris Sinnard "

I got a lot of love of sheehan. I feel her pain, being a former soldier. She speaks for the voiceless mothers, who can't say waht she says, but want to.

we should give her all teh support we can getting pelosi out of their.

http://www.gsfp.org/

What teh ko's do is their business. We are not the borg gop. We are all individuals with our own strengths and weaknesses.

Maybe this was a sign the ko's realized the error of their ways, in this instance .:)

Let's face it, Obama wants to be president as badly as Hillary did. To that end, he'll do or say anything. Too bad, for a few weeks there I was actually fooled into thinking he might really be an agent of change. But now we know that his courage ends where his fundraising begins.

I've joked about not voting for him, but of course I will. I'll go to the voting booth in November, hold my nose, and cast my ballot for the least objectionable sell-out.

Is "Geraldo Rivera" your final answer? Better luck next time.

And for the record sparky, we defeated Saddam in 1991 but pulled back because we were not there for regime change, at that time.

Yes, exactly. That actually happened---that was what I referred to. The US dared not occupy---see next point.

We defeated Saddam again in 2003, but poor strategy after his removal led to the insurgency.

Right again---my point exactly. War doesn't allow do-overs and excuses. The US lost. You lost.

So, yes, we would defeat Iran rather easily in a conventional war.

We would "defeat" Iran easily in a conventional war IF said conventional war did not turn into an unconventional one. And then what? What's the point in "defeating" a country so weak it's no threat? So what? Are you quite sure you aren't brainwashed by your 16 years of "service"?

Too bad you have exactly zero experience in this arena to actually carry on an intelligent debate.

How do you know this? Because I didn't instantly trumpet my military experience? Because I disagree with your simplistic "analysis"? Does only military experience---i.e., following orders for 16 years---count in assessing military scenarios? (cf. Iraq OIF) Are theere other kinds of knowledge that might explain the US defeat in Iraq other than "they stabbed us in the back"?

For whoever it was that questioned my belief in the Constitution, I've served my country for over 16 years now in several different war zones to include Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. What have you done to defend the Constitution in your lifetime?

Whoever it was is doing more than you ever did, simply by debating you. In one of your initial comments, you announced your desire to give the whole thing away. You never DID defend the Constitution. You defended empire. Don't expect thanks from me.

I'm saddened and disgusted that Representative Perlmutter, from my district, was a "yea" on this vote. I went to his office and made phone calls many days during his campaign to help bring out voters for him. I'm even more disgusted with Barack Obama.

The sad fact is, the Democrats were in cahoots with the President when all this began and they knew all about it, so they're trying to save themselves. Sadly, we voters end up with a president who is given power to do just about anything he (or she) wants without any judicial oversight.

Here it is, just in case you've forgotten or never learned what the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Think about it.

Yup, that's the same Constitution those people swore to uphold when they took office. They just crapped on it.

Is it time to move out of the country yet? I'm thinking it's just about time to go.

Trying to take a deep breath while clinging and clutching a small, short, badly frayed thread of hope...

Obama said:

It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses.

if, if, if

If the Senate were to prevail in removing telecom immunity from the current bill, then it would function as a poison pill, and my money says Bush would veto it.

If the Senate is successful in moving the telecom immunity provision into a separate bill ... then, maybe, it buys some time.

Am I hopelessly over the edge?

"The only rational thing to do right now: scream.

Actually, the only rational thing I can do is take my six year old son to the local park and watch him play around for awhile.

Maybe after that I'll be in a better frame of mind.

May I suggest everyone else do the same before we go writing off the future?

-- Iokannan in the Well "

Picture hoyer's/di fi/reid pelosi's head as the ball

My "MyBarackObama" profile is up and configured, and I will probably make FISA/Privacy/Gov't Accountability issues my #1 most talked about items on the blog there.

Not to defend Senator Obama's too-clever-by-half response (and, true, it remains to be seen whether he will do anything substantive in the Senate to expunge the offensive provisions of the bill), I still think it is paramount to support his efforts to defeat McCain in the fall.

Of course, I hold no illusions that Senator Clinton, were she in Obama's position, would have come out in full-voiced opposition of this bill (especially coming out of a less-than-crushing lead and a seemingly fractured Democratic base).

Now, from a purely political standpoint, Obama's position either way on this issue is a damned if you do, damned if you don't game of chicken with "independants", TV pundits, the right wing, lobbyists and a number of other "feet to the fire" elements. I can forgive Obama these last few slips because he is no Dennis Kucinich (who stands to lose much less than Obama).

I believe the majority of Americans oppose immunity, or do not understand the stakes. I say as much on blogspot, MyBarackObama and here. How do we inject this issue into the public conversation?

I don't know. But I'm going to try a different tack (I know, this is going to sound crazy coming from me) and try to catch some flies with honey.

Anyway, keep up the good work Glenn. I've temporarily suspended my contributions to Obama until I see some better efforts on his part. I think he flubbed this one, but its a long way to November.

Si se puede?