I just have to say this to someone...I just knew Bush and Cheney were nutcases. Back in 1999, it was abundantly clear that they were both crazy. More than willing to use the most vicious wing of reactionary politics for their own ends. Everything we see now could have been foretold. Was foretold, by some. It'll be interesting to see if those who knew will ever be given any credit. The signs were plain for all to see that we were electing extremists, just as Hitler was "elected" in the early 1930s --or, at least, his installation as chancellor was confirmed in a quasi-democratic fashion; the analogy is not entirely apt, but suggestive, anyway.

And, of course, just as Hitler's "election" was essentially a put-up job..so was the 2000 election. Bush never won that. He was installed. Just like Hitler. The analogy is quite apt, there.

The American system was clearly subverted. Our system was designed to avoid this kind of thing, by institutional checks. This is what you get when the careful checks created by our founders are subverted. You get incompetent, violent ideologues with no counterbalancing forces to rein them in. The Dems totally abnegated their responsibilities here. They could have voted against war, and should have, to a man and woman.

I'll be very curious to see what happens if the GOP loses congress this year... would Bush suspend the Congress? Probably not. He'd have to have the military behind him for that, and I don't think they'd go for it.

With Bush and Cheney, we have likely narrowly missed a vicious, corrupt tyranny. The next time, we may not be so lucky.

ROBERT TRENT PAINE

INSURGENT=

American Revolitionary, (1731-1814)

AGAINST "ALL THE KINGS MEN".

THOMAS PAINE

INSURGENT=

Author=

American Revolutionary, (1737-1809)

AGAINST "ALL THE KINGS MEN".

Also against the RedToryBlairCoats (WHIG or TORY).

OUR REVOLUTIONARIES WERE AGAINST FASCISM the PNAC way.

ROVEing ON->

FASCISM the PNAC weight: *1. A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong centralized government usually headed by a "DickDubyatatorShip" [jpimsha], and often a policy of belligerent nationalism. *2. Opressive or dictatorial control. kinda' like "ALL THE KINGS MEN".

Sub Sole Sub Umbra Virens

*Houghton Mifflin (1982)

ISBN 0-395-33959-6

keep putting out that we americans have more to fear from the republicans than from the terrorists, and there is no doubt, with that idea, that the democrats will lose the national election this year, and again in '08. feel brainy, feel smarter than your average countryman, feel like an abject loser come 8 november.

did salon ever review peter beinart"s book, the good fight: why liberals-- and only liberals--can win the war on terror and make america great again?

HEY TONY!

Tell those REPORTERS, tell the Public, tell the World:

It is NOT a SNOW JOB!

the point, screamingly self-evident, is that the Bushit policies, in addition to leading to 25K casualties, and rising daily, and wasting billions of dollars a month, and misdirecting the struggle against the real terrorists, has made us demonstrably less safe than we were on September 11. War spreading like wildfire, civilian deaths acting as a constant, compelling terrorist recruiting poster, and a "coalition of the willing" that consists of pissant Bushit and his lap-poodle Tony. we are losing ground, losing lives, and losing resources. This is the most inept, most deciptful administration in American history. So, yes, otherwise stated, republikan control of our government is a more palpable threat to our national security than Osama. Remember him? Tall guy. Makes videos. Carries a dialysis machine with him. A more abject failure than Commander Codpiece is impossible to conjour. Screw him and every one of his goosestepping supporters, including the milquetoast middle of the road Liebermanesque limpwristers like Ess Oh Bee.

Once again, you say what we all have been trying to say, only better. Thanks

...for the Democrats to re-trot out their list of anti-terrorism initiatives, such as adopting all key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They did it months ago, nobody listened, and nothing's been done. They also might wonder aloud why the f@!$!@# bin Laden is still out there.

If they don't sieze the agenda on this--if they allow the Repugs to say, "See? We TOLD you terrorism was still a threat!!" as if the Democrats' increasing opposition to the Iraq War meant they were unconcerned about terrorism--then they truly never learn.

They have to go on the offensive.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist BUT the timing of this - 2 days after the Lieberman defeat - was just too cute. Reminds me of all the strategically timed orange alerts during the Kerry campaign.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think plane passengers were ever in any danger. I think they could have broken up this "terrorist ring" at any time and they chose a politically expedient one. Bet you we'll see more of this before November.

Of all the Bush-Cheney crimes, this one, which they've committed many times - is the worst - scaring the electorate to death for political gains. Shame on them.

LeCastor, generally I find myself nodding in agreement when you appear, but not now.

"Now, correct me if i am wrong, but Al-Qaeda and friends do not "exalt nation or race," ... "

I would say they do, and I would call that nation a hoped-for and striven-for "caliphate" or "umma." There is no separation of state and religion in strict Islam.

(I'd also add, just because Bush sucks doesn't mean there aren't folks around who suck equally if not harder.)

I won't go further, I fear any more vocabulary nitpicking will veer into the pedantic.