> "He is pushing for healthcare. Talk to the GOP if healthcare reform doesn't happen."

He told Congress to formulate a plan, and he'll agree to whatever they produce as he has endorsed every move so far.

> "He is standing down in Iraq (as promised)."

He's not standing down from anything. He'll be there with the same force strength in 2012.

> "He is building forces in Afghanistan (as promised)."

He is building forces in Afghanistan (as promised).

> "General Motors has emerged from bankruptcy."

As a wholly taxpayer owned entity.

> "Eight years of Bush's criminal mismanagement will take a helluva lot longer than six months to fix."

They're joined at the hip.

Be the change you wish to see. If you want to see no change - you're absolutely on the right track. If you say there's no reason for change, you're exactly who you seem to be.

If you want positive results - if you want results at all - you're nowhere near them.

Your perception is occluded by a susceptibility to mesmerism. Change, Progress, Yes We Can.

you mean how like in 2000 the head of the election commission in Florida illegally struck thousands of black people from the voting rolls be "mistakenly" saying how they were convicted felons? (They weren't) And after it was pointed out what they did wrong, they did it again in 2004? Or how bout the all the police stops set up in spots between predominantly black neighborhoods in FL and the polls to intimidate voters? Is that the kind of shenanigans you're talking about? ya, that equates to ONE incident of a black panther at ONE polling place who was led away by the police when someone complained.

So the actual "detention" was illegal also? Or is that a 'pre- judgment' handed down from the 'Walsh court' of opinion to bolster the argument? What exactly would you do with these people caught on the battlefield; let them go? I guess in your world prosecutions should only move forward if 'public opinion' supports it at the time. In mine it goes something like this: If you've broken the law you should be prosecuted regardless of the political climate. If not; it's time to move on..

....Sorry, the vision of someone getting a little water up his nose, really doesn't rise to the level of "torture' in my view. I've had worse days at the beach. The under tow at Fire Island can be a real bitch on some days . Then again, my views are tempered with the memory of 3000 people crushed and burned to death in collapsing buildings; and the smell of death filling the streets for months... Go figure.

Sorry, the vision of someone getting a little water up his nose, really doesn't rise to the level of "torture' in my view

And when your upper respiratory tract is 100% blocked off by a water soaked rag until 30 seconds later you feel like taking a breath and can't because you're strapped to a board? How about then?

"....Sorry, the vision of someone getting a little water up his nose, really doesn't rise to the level of "torture' in my view. I've had worse days at the beach."

A. You don't know what you're talking about. Its not simulated drowning, its drowning that is controlled. Controlled by people that have kidnapped you, hooded and transported you who knows where, held for months and eventually years with no recourse to the law, enemies whom you assume want you dead and then be waterboarded, over and over along with all the other techniques. I think you'll be a little more upset than having sand in your shorts.

B. What does 9/11 have to do with it? You've absolutely no way of knowing that the people we've tortured have anything to do with 9/11.

C. The U.S. executed Japanese for waterboarding after WW2. So irrespective of your glib beach reference, its torture.

I wouldn't get too carried away about public outrage. If you look back at Watergate, there was no outrage until the televised hearings. Nixon and his gang successfully covered up the scandal until Woodward and Bernstein uncovered enough evidence to get the ball rolling.

People don't automatically get outraged about something that doesn't focus their attention. Like public testimony. Pictures of course help, as we saw with Abu Ghraib.

What is called for is leadership. Like it or not, Barack Obama is the best we can feasibly do for President of the United States. If for some complexity of reasons he falls short as a leader, then it is a reflection of us. Rahm Emanuel Shmam Emanuel. If this silly excuse for a national policy executive is able to control what gets done in our names, then it is because the way we translate votes into action is inherently weak. He's Obama's man, and Obama is our man.

Eric Holder, of course, has to do the right thing in the context of a tanking economy and a failing attempt to create a meaningful health care policy. Then there is the prospect of global climate change on the verge of kicking into high gear. This is, to coin a phrase, a full plate.

I suppose one could look at the prosecution of the Bush gang as vital to our ethical standards, but on a practical level, it will look very bad if we go into a depression, continue to have a criminal health care system, and are beset by hurricanes, tornados, forest fires, drought, blizzards, and rising sea levels.

The "Republicans" may be criminal to the core, but they are masters at propaganda. They are in total spin mode, and if other concerns weigh heavy on the public, prosecuting the Bush gang may seem vindictive and grandstandish. Rahm Emanuel migh not be so bad afer all. It may be that he has a sense of priority, and survival as well.

Is not.

(Is that how you play?)

Climates change. That's what they do. The Little Ice Age of the 17th Century. The diminishing of polar caps on Mars in the 21st. CO2 comprises only 0.037% of Earth's atmosphere (that is, less than 4 100ths of 1 percent), and isn't even the most effective theoretical trapper of heat. So the hysteria surrounding so-called manmade global warming shouldn't be part of any policy arguments going forward.