"Energy's on the Anti-Iraq Side"

It is not often that this column pays tribute to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. But the man who in 1994 played a pivotal role in putting the Republican Party in control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years -- and in developing the strategies that have kept the GOP in control -- has a sharp political mind. And he used it this week to analyze the unexpectedly strong showing of Democrat Paul Hackett in a special election to fill the southern Ohio U.S. House seat vacated by U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman.

Hackett won 48.3 percent of the vote in a district where no Democrat had ever gotten more than 28 percent against Portman. In the most Republican House district in the state of Ohio, the Democrat, a Marine veteran of the Iraq war, lost by barely 3,000 votes. And he did that after a campaign in which he said the U.S. should not have invaded the Iraq in the first place and condemned the administration's approach to the occupation. Unlike more cautious Democrats, Hackett was unapologetic about calling President Bush an "SOB" whose actions endangered Americans, and about referring to members of the administration as "chickenhawks."

Of course,most Republicans and their media allies were quick to dismiss the significance of Hackett's showing -- despite the fact that it was the best finish for a Democrat in the district since the Watergate election of 1974. The rules of spin these days are such that reality is rarely allowed to intrude on discussions of politics.

But Gingrich decided to ditch the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee's talking points and recognize the significance of Hackett's near win. Speaking to the Washington Post on the day after the Ohio vote, the former Speaker of the House said, "It should serve as a wake-up call to Republicans. Clearly, there's a pretty strong signal for Republicans thinking about 2006 that they need to do some very serious planning and not just assume that everything is going to be automatically okay."

With a new Associated Press-Ipsos poll showing that President Bush's overall approval rating has fallen to 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving -- and 50 percent of Americans surveyed saying the nation's top Republican is not honest -- the evidence that the GOP has a potential problem extends well beyond the results from one special election in Ohio.

But the Ohio vote telescoped the significance of concern about the Iraq imbroglio as a factor in the governing party's declining fortunes -- a point confirmed by the new poll's finding that only 38 percent of Americans now approve of Bush's handling of the occupation.

Gingrich acknowledges this reality, saying that, ''There is more energy today on the anti-Iraq, anti-gas price, anti-changing Social Security, and I think anti-Washington (side of the debate). I think the combination of those four are all redounding to weaken Republicans and help Democrats... I don't think this is time to panic, but I think it's time to think. If we don't think now, then next September, people will panic when it's too late."

Gingrich's warning is a wise one for Republicans, and you can bet that it will be taken seriously by at least some leaders of a party that has mastered the art of maintaining power. As such, the real question is this: Will Democrats be smart enough to recognize that Gingrich is right when he speaks about the energy being on the anti-Iraq side?

So far, indications are not encouraging. An analysis of the strong showing by Hackett distributed to Democratic House after the election by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee failed to make any mention of the significance of Iraq as an issue.

Comments (256)

1. Perhaps what the voters responded to was the brashness of Hackett, the fact that he did not seem to hesitate about his more liberal positions. Confidence always helps.

   Posted by hhemwm at 08/05/2005 @ 2:48pm

2. In what way was the Hackett victory a fluke, ZERO - ?

   Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 2:50pm

3. We need more strong-willed Democrats like this to call this flip-flopping administration the chickenhawks they undoubtedly are (like Dick "I Had Other Priorities" Cheney) and keep pointing out their consistent dishonesty on Iraq (boy, that insurgency must really be in its "last throes", huh, Dick?).

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/05/2005 @ 3:03pm

4. Keeping your like-minded politicians out of power is now a responsibility to the point of duty.

   Oh, definitely. Otherwise we'd have an administration asleep and whose watch America was under when 9/11 happened, lying about the main rationale for a politically- and monetarily-motivated war, racking up record deficits, cutting benefits for veterans, sending our troops in harm's way without proper equipment...oh, wait -- this is a Republican administration this has all happened under. Duh.

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/05/2005 @ 3:10pm

5. The Dems are woefully out of touch if they think they need to avoid the Iraq issue. Take Hackett's cue, call Bush an SOB. Unfortunately, they can't seem to get a grasp on what they would do. As we saw in November, just being not-Bush won't get it done.

   Does anybody know who is out there that provides any hope of a strong opposition candidate?

   Posted by rain man at 08/05/2005 @ 3:14pm

6. I'll be keeping an eye on Obama, RAIN MAN.

   Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:17pm

7. Rain Man, How about Biden? What are your thoughts on the Senator he seems to have picked it up a gear in the last few months. I like that he's honest about wanting the presidency but don't like his talk of national unity tickets. Unify by voting out the neocons.

   Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 3:19pm

8. Oh, and Freheit, it's not an occupation, huh? From Webster's:

   : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force"

   Naaaaaaaaaaaah, this isn't an occupation at all going on in Iraq.

   (rolls eyes)

   Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/05/2005 @ 3:20pm

9. Can I then infer, FREIHEIT, that you see Gingrich as an abettor of the insurgency, since it was HIS observations in this regard that prompted the column?

   It's always dicey making that tired extrapolation - i.e., opposing the idiot Bush and his morally bankrupt, oil-soaked war automatically translates into unpatriotic support for the bad guys. Is it possible there are still people out there who think that way - that's lame, even for chickenhawk Republicans.

   Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:24pm

10. Care to explain exactly why Biden would be a bad candidate? Or is this yet another knee-jerk reaction from you, Freheit, where you sling mud that hasn't an iota of substance for it to stick. (Oh, wait. We all know the answer to that.)

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/05/2005 @ 3:26pm

11. News they do think that way, to think any deeper about it would be tiring to the neocon. It would adversly affect their golf game.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 3:28pm

12. You can bet your ass that when these polls are taken and the question is asked - do you approve of the way things are going in Iraq, many of the "no" responses are from people thinking we should be doing more to win.

    If we didn't have to be so "PC" about things, this war would already be over.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/05/2005 @ 3:28pm

13. Well, Kevin, I have to say I don't like Biden either - and believe me I'm on YOUR side. I have nothing but contempt for Biden, Lieberman and the like who didn't have guts enough to vote their conscience on all this in the first place. I'm starting to be nervous about Hillary, too - she's doing that move-to-the-center dance that makes me nervous; it worked for Bill because he was living in very different times than these. Right now, we need a real, fanged OPPOSITION candidate. Sorry to say I have nothing to offer in the way of suggestions, either, given the present situation.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:28pm

14. Freiheit,

    Then please explain how this isn't an occupation. Yes, you're actually being asked to back up your claim. I realize this goes against the Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter grain, but give it a whirl. Otherwise you'll just continue to come off as a knee-jerk reactionary who can't back up what he says in his toe-the-line, head-in-the-sand Bush-defender way.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/05/2005 @ 3:29pm

15. USAPRIDE, do you similarly feel that when polls ratify YOUR opinion, that they've been poorly conducted and have produced flawed data?

    Of course not. Being a member of the God-Bless-Amurka right means never having to understand the meaning of "hypcrisy."

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:31pm

16. MEWSICIAN,

    I'm not a fan of Biden's either. I was simply requesting that Freiheit actually offer up an explanation for his obvious contempt for Biden. But, as you should know by now, Freiheit is one of these overly-obedient Bushies who defend their little flip-flopper of a boy king because those deficit-contributing tax cuts are a whole lot more important to them than the lives and welfare of our troops.

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/05/2005 @ 3:33pm

17. Mews thats a good point. Lieberman should switch parties hes been drinking the cool aid.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 3:34pm

18. Well, FREIHEIT, why DON'T you see Gingrich as an abettor?

    See my remarks to USAPRIDE, above. You people never cease to entertain me; you live in an echo chamber where no rules of empricism (look it up - it'll do you some good to open a reference volume of some kind for once in your life) need apply. If you think it's true, it IS true! If you don't like what you hear, it much be liberal hype! Gawd. What I don't get is why you aren't embarrassed at being so transparently hypocritical. One of the great mysteries of our time, along with how America could have degenerated to this point.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:34pm

19. RFK Jr. is the man. Unfortunately, politics is below him. He spends his time actually productive things (see environmental work).

    Posted by BlueTexan at 08/05/2005 @ 3:35pm

20. Ooops - sorry, FREIHEIT. If I'm going to insist that you learn the magic of dictionaries, I'll have to do my part by spelling things correctly. My bad.

    Empiricism. E-M-P-I-R-I-C-I-S-M.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:36pm

21. A concern with Biden is that he's a Senator. And no matter what he says now, he did vote for the occupation (sorry, I mean the invasion, corrective action...I'm not sure)--Freiheit, what is it?

    Posted by rain man at 08/05/2005 @ 3:38pm

22. Enlighten us further, FREIHEIT. Give us specific examples of Biden policies - domestic, foreign, economic; your choice - that you see as being beneficial to the nation. Key word: SPECIFIC. Please TELL me you can do that, and not just come onto a blog like this one and push for a candidate that you know could never win - in the best dirty-spin tradition of that toad Karl Rove (one of your heroes, perhaps?).

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:39pm

23. Beg to dffer, ZERO. Hackett's showing was no fluke. It was, in my view, hard evidence that people in this country have wakened from their stupor and see this crop of lying fascists for what they are - and voters will respond with gusto, even in hard-right districts, I believe, to anyone that they recognize as being willing to stand up and speak with the force of their personal convictions. That's what Hackett did, and that's why it'll happen anywhere another candidate has the guts to buck the party machinery and do the same. Of course it also didn't hurt that he was a bonafide vet....

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:44pm

24. MEWSICIAN,

    No, I believe that all polls are skewd to get the desired results. I'm saying that alot of those "no" answers aren't what you think.

    Sorry to disappoint such a patroit as yourself.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/05/2005 @ 3:45pm

25. So all of a sudden duty calls, eh FREIHEIT? What a surprise. Turning tail and running is one of the breed's consistently identifiable characteristics. Any chance you COULD be in Iraq fighting, supporting this non-occupation by putting YOUR ass on the line, but you're not?

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:46pm

26. Prediction: The Democrats will win back the House of Representatives in 2006 and the White House in 2008. I say this because the Republicans have shown the American public that they are too corrupt to be trusted. Now, that's not saying the Democrats are any less corrupt but they aren't the ones trying to give the company store to the wealthiest one percent. Neither are they the ones who gave us bogus reasons for invading Iraq...

    Posted by Uriah43 at 08/05/2005 @ 3:47pm

27. time for a little truth about the ongoing war in Iraq vs the left wing lies. Newsweek has hardly been cheerleaders for President Bush.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8679662/site/newsweek/

    Truth is the First Civilian Casualty Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died since 2003. But killings by U.S. troops are not nearly as common as the war's critics would like us to believe.

    Web Exclusive BY Rod Nordland Newsweek Updated: 11:12 a.m. ET July 25, 2005

    But how often, really? The answer: not very often, in fact. And not nearly often enough to make the 150,000 U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq the leading scourge of Iraq's civilians. That dishonor goes, hands down, to the insurgents. Even one incident is bad, of course, and there have been many. But civilian killings by U.S. troops are not nearly as common as the critics of the war in Iraq would like us to believe. It has become an article of faith among them that American troops have been slaughtering Iraqi civilians indiscriminately, and that one of the consequences of the war has been an unconscionable loss of life among the civilian population. It just isn't true.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/05/2005 @ 3:48pm

28. The democrats biggest problem with this war is the fact that most of them voted for it - and rarely does a politician admit to a mistake. And if they do admit to a mistake, they should step down for their utter incompetence! If I was running against a senator in his seat since before 9/11 - not only would I slam him/her for being asleep at the wheel on 9/10, I'd rip them a new one for sticking their head right up GB's butt in the days, weeks, months years following. This is not a liberal vs conservative issue: the war has been a horrible mistake - not one prediction/reason-for-going has come true - from the noncheering nongrateful Iraqis to the nonweapons piled up all over the place, Bush has proved to be so incompetent - that you can only imagine his defenders doing so out of a position of being backed into a corner with nowhere to run! Unless we get a true leftist running against Bush's Jesus fixation, his anti-intellectualism, his blundering of the war/foreign policy, his homo hatred and his unbelieveable fealty to the ultra wealthy, the left will continue to fail...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 3:52pm

29. His post is a "ray of light" in your estimation only because it ratifies something you think is true. I rest my case.

    And nothing makes me chuckle with more gusto than right-wing patriots hurling the "cheap shot" accusation. Did any of you ever hear the one about living in glass houses and not throwing stones? Or, if you're not inclined toward the biblical, the old chestnut about what's good for the goose being good for the gander?

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 3:52pm

30. YOU LIBS LIVE IN SUCH A DREAMWORLD I HOPE YOU NEVER WAKE UP....ALL THIS BLOVIATING ABOUT IRAQ IS JUST BACKGROUND NOISE BY PATHETIC OUT OF POWER CRY BABIES THAT ARE DEVOID OF ANY IDEAS THEMSELVES AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL NEVER TRUST YOU LIBS FOR AT LEAST A GENERATION TO LET YOU EVER CONTROL POWER AGAIN...GO AHEAD LIVE IN YOUR FANTASY WORLD....LET THE ADULTS RUN THE SHOW

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 3:53pm

31. Uriah43 wrote: Prediction: The Democrats will win back the House of Representatives in 2006 and the White House in 2008. I say this because the Republicans have shown the American public that they are too corrupt to be trusted. Now, that's not saying the Democrats are any less corrupt but they aren't the ones trying to give the company store to the wealthiest one percent. Neither are they the ones who gave us bogus reasons for invading Iraq...

    I see, will that be because Kerry, Clinton, Biden, and other Dem leaders have been continually calling for more troops in Iraq? Bush Administration has already announced tentative schedule to reduce troop levels next year in Iraq, so I'm sure you're right and the public would rather go with the Dem plan! right (not)

    And I'm sure that voters will surge to Democrats over the opportunity to return to tax rates of 50, 70, or 90%; I can hardly wait to turn over all my income again to the Government since obviously we citizens are too stupid to know what to do with our money.

    Maybe it will be the chance to appoint more liberal judges like Ginsburg and Breyer who led the 5-4 side of the recent Eminent Domain decision to take away people's homes for business development (yes, it was the lib judges, not Scalia, and Thomas who wrote a separate dissent siding with the NAACP).

    Why those kinds of decisions must have the public clamoring for that kind of liberal activism? no? well, maybe the "conservative media" is just not reporting this liberal uprising.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/05/2005 @ 4:03pm

32. URIAH43,

    Too bad 60 million Americans disagreed with your views in November.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/05/2005 @ 4:03pm

33. "ALL THIS BLOVIATING ABOUT IRAQ IS JUST BACKGROUND NOISE BY PATHETIC OUT OF POWER CRY BABIES THAT ARE DEVOID OF ANY IDEA"

    I have an idea: what if the 20 marines who died for absolutely nothing last week got instead to be home holding their children or kissing their wives? My Idea: they'd still be alive! Another idea: what if we didn't blow billions upon billions for a huge war crime that's helped no one? My idea: we'd have the money to spend on silly stuff like infrastructure or research or feeding poor people...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 4:04pm

34. My rich republican brother in law and my rich sister voted for Bush and support this war - for brown and black and dumb-ass white people - they have NO INTENTION of allowing their own kids - 13 and 17 - of dying for Muslim democracy... Like anyone who supports this war, they are liars and hypocrites...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 4:06pm

35. War Crime?

    It was authorized by the "law makers" of this country. You remember, 77 votes.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/05/2005 @ 4:07pm

36. "War Crime?

    It was authorized by the "law makers" of this country. You remember, 77 votes"

    and Hitler was voted into power as well! You thinhk because it was supported by our whorish and cowardly politicians makes it any less a war crime? when Iraqi children are blown to peices for no reason? I'm not a leftist, thogh I progressive, but I realize what a mistake this has been...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 4:08pm

37. I really should slow down and edit my posts... but you know what I mean!

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 4:09pm

38. "what if the 20 marines who died for absolutely nothing"

    SEE THATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOU LIBS AND US REGULAR AMERICANS....WE THINK OUR SOLDIERS (AND THEY DO TOO) ARE FIGHTING FOR A NOBLE CAUSE SOMETHING IT SEEMS YOU LIBS HAVE FORGOTTEN HOW TO DO. SO FORTUNATELY MOST AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH THAT STUPID STATEMENT...BUT WHAT DO YOU EXPECT FOR A LIB ANYWAY???

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:10pm

39. Oh, I see - back to Hitler again.

    Lame.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/05/2005 @ 4:11pm

40. HEY ZERO...GET YOU HEAD OUT OF YOU BUTT....THE PRESIDENT (UNLIKE CLINTON) DOESNT GOVERN BY POLLS...ONLY YOU LIBS NEED POLLS BECAUSE YOUR SO CONFUSED AS TO WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN....PATHETIC

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:12pm

41. Hi Aludra:

    "FORTUNATELY MOST AMERICANS DISAGREE WITH THAT STUPID STATEMENT" I think this war is very unpopular - but you must know things the rest of us do not!

    "WE THINK OUR SOLDIERS (AND THEY DO TOO) ARE FIGHTING FOR A NOBLE CAUSE..."

    I know I'm slow today - maybe you can express exactly what that noble cause might be...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 4:12pm

42. "Oh, I see - back to Hitler again.

    Lame."

    Dude, you're the lame one devoid of history - I didn't call you Hitler, you said that the war is just because the Senate voted for it - I said the German people voted for Hitler - so he must be okay, too... Can't deal with the truth? too bad!

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 4:14pm

43. it looks to me like the results of the house race discussed in the article would be a significant wake up call to all of the democrats currently planning campaigns for 2006. is there any hope that more of them will finally realize this occupation is as unpopular as has been shown by Mr. Hackett?

    Posted by wordupyo at 08/05/2005 @ 4:16pm

44. Do we have to continue to endure the idiot with the INTELLEGENCE level of ZERO

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:16pm

45. Jabelson remeber the neos don't think its PC to compare the present facists to the one from the 40's.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 4:17pm

46. What's with you people. Once again I have to start a post with:

    I didn't say...

    I know you weren't calling me Hitler.

    Read what I write, not what your bias adds.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/05/2005 @ 4:18pm

47. thanks for your comment Zero. It always amazes me how silent many of these Dems get when confronted with the reality of their party.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/05/2005 @ 4:19pm

48. THE PRESIDENT (UNLIKE CLINTON) DOESNT GOVERN BY POLLS

    Clinton lost the congress because he ignored the polls and raised taxes to balance the budget for the good of the country. Thats governing without looking to the polls. We then had a surplus and unprecedented growth. He was attacked by the very demagogues who ran up the debt.

    Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 4:23pm

49. Usapride - sorry about the Hitler mix-up

    I assumed that YOU didn't know what YOU were writing based on the fact that you don't what you're talking about - based on reading what you've posted so far...

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 4:23pm

50. JABELSON,

    Why, do have a problem with reality?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/05/2005 @ 4:25pm

51. I jumped in on this blog because, unlike so many Nation posts these days, I was able to get in BEFORE the arrival of the bloviating ALUDRA. I don't understand why others allow themselves to be drawn into this idiot's diatribes. I'm not even sure they're genuine. On one other occasion, I successfully carried on a blog conversation with others who agreed that the best way to proceed was the truly American way - that is, allow ALUDRA to rail away, because that's his/her right, but DON''T BOTHER RESPONDING. Amazingly, on that post, he/she soon tired of being ignored and blessedly went away.

    Why do we enable this person in his/her quest to dominate things? Scroll to the ID on each blog, and move on if it's him/her. Read and respond to the comments that aren't just some kind of flame-thrower. It works!

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 4:25pm

52. "We then had a surplus and unprecedented growth." WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

    Until the 1994 takeover of congress by REPUBLICANS it was deficits as far as the eye can see. Clinton had NOTHING to do with the 90's economy.. It was Republicans scaling back goverment alongside the internet/tech boom.. SO get your facts straight...Clinton did what Dims & LIBS do best .....RAISE TAXES...just like good little socialists do

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:28pm

53. "the self-proclaimed "conservatives" are really, really bad."

    SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT CRY BABIES....BOO HOO HOO HOO

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:29pm

54. I am, incidentally, virulently opposed to doing things the way the crybaby whiners on the right-leaning blogs do - they simply disallow members of the left to participate, the same way Dumbya disallowed anyone who doesn't worship at his feet to attend his taxpayer-funded rallies. Is there any better example of why these people could not BE bigger hypcrites in their never-ending claims to being true patriots? NEWS FLASH, patriots: stifling dissent by every means available is wholly, unequivally

    U-N-A-M-E-R-I-C-A-N. (I put it in caps since I thought that would improve my chances of it being read by those who prefer that style.....)

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 4:31pm

55. "It's recipe for the end of any serious discussion."

    SERIOUS WITH YOU???? LOL

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:33pm

56. JUST IGNORE HIM/HER.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 4:34pm

57. Ooops....another gaffe. Make that "unequivocally"

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 4:35pm

58. GO AHEAD...JUST LIKE YOU LIBS IGNORE REGULAR AMERICANS...GREAT STRATEGY

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:36pm

59. "group: i don't have time or energy for this. i'll check back in a while and see if things have gotten better."

    Please take your time...I could use a breather not reading that tripe

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:39pm

60. Exactly why I stopped participating myself, ZERO. But it's our own fault (collectively speaking), isn't it, for dignifying all that flabbajabba with response? Why do you bother letting it get to you? TUNE IT OUT. Read past it. Move on. Otherwise, we risk being stuck in the same mindless self-certainty that we loath so much in the right. Don't hand this loser a victory by stopping the conversation. That's probably their goal anyway. I for one don't believe they really care about anything substantive like discussing policy or potential leaders or any of the rest. They just want to dominate by screaming. And sadly, this country has allowed them that victory, if the MSM is any indication. For my part, I just don't watch/listen/read anything they have to say. Trust me - your life will be more pleasant if you can just adopt the discipline to do that, here and elsewhere. Hell with that jerk!

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 4:42pm

61. Liberty:

    " GET YOU HEAD OUT OF YOU BUTT "! Aren't you proud of your partner - Deludra?....

    This is the reality of your party!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/05/2005 @ 4:45pm

62. "aludra: eat shit and die, you worthless creep."

    No-Nonsense arent you proud of your partner...those loveable LIBS on your side...the sweet talkers that call our beloved president everything but a child of GOD?? Hypocracy is thy name

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 4:50pm

63. And so, back to the point I was wrangling with FREIHEIT over before he fled. On the outside chance he/she comes back to face the challengers, I add this to the list of questions I've asked him/her to respond to:

    One man's cheap shot is another man's fair question, FREI. I think it's very fair to ask why you cheerleaders for Bush's war are doing so from the sidelines. It would only be a cheap shot on my part if you hadn't indicated your support in the first place. I think it's VERY fair to ask every last service-age man and woman in this country who insists on supporting the lunacy in Iraq why THEY THEMSELVES aren't over there slogging it out. Every single one of you. If you personally are not willing to die for the liberty of Iraqis or the eradication of dastardly dictators or mythical WMDs (or whatever the Bush cabal's justification du jour for this mess is), then I say you should sit down and shut up. I say this as a person who has one brother that's flown two tours over Iraq in an F-16, and a lifelong friend who is a two-star general and part of the national military leadership - whose son recently completed a master's in political strategy abroad but took time out from his life in Europe to serve in a front-line combat unit in Baghdad. I say it again: your kind should put up or shut up. A Jackson Browne lyric comes to mind - something about so-called leaders "who can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are/but they're never the ones to fight or to die."

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 4:51pm

64. Anyway I think people are getting fed up with energy costs, the answer from bush and congress-tax cuts for oil companies. People are fed up with watching there kids die in Iraq bush and the congress are completely lost as to how to get out of that one. People are fed up with CIA agents being outed and no bid contracts and being force fed religon and pseudo science. Thats why Hackett came so close in a very conservative district. 2004 will mark the highpoint of the neocon scourge. Thanks, now back to the Kool-aid!

    Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 4:52pm

65. "JABELSON,

    Why, do have a problem with reality?"

    It depends on which reality we're referring to. Are we referring to the reality of "Mission accomplished" or to the reality of dead marines, blown up subways and busses, heads chopped off and Muslims screamming yes yes Islam, no no America...?

    Posted by jabelson at 08/05/2005 @ 5:00pm

66. Yes, SALUNGA - I agree. I think people are getting sick of it all. I always remember back when Clinton was being pounded into dirt by the moral brigades in the House - even on his darkest days, his approval rating never slipped much below 70%. To me, that is a valuable reminder that you can't fool people - at least not for long. Even the American public - huge sectors of it brain-dead - knows flimflammery when they see it. And I do believe they're seeing it! But we need the media to stop shilling for Bush via their corporate owners, or it's going to take a lot longer for the awakening to be completed.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:01pm

67. CNN Poll 1999

    Clinton's approval rating, now at 53 percent, is the lowest of his second term.

    The number of Americans who oppose U.S. participation in NATO airstrikes, 47 percent, is the highest since those attacks began.

    According to the new poll, the number of Americans who are confident in Clinton's ability to handle the situation in Kosovo has dropped from 66 percent in March to 57 percent now.

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 5:05pm

68. To all those complaining about aludra:

    it would be nice and entirely more effective if you guys followed your own advice. Stop coming up with such ridiculous and pathetic arguments like "iraq is about oil" or "right -wing fascists" or religious zealots" or implying that some how this coutnry is ruined because there are policies you dont agree with. Instead why not make substantive arguments and not include attacks at conservatives, or the right wing. Attack the policy instead. To call any one in the bush administration a fascist is outright ignorant of what a fascist is, so all it does is lessen your credibility.

    Aludra's tone ( and the tone of oreilly, hannity, etc) is in part a reflection on the ridiculous and misguided arguments made by some people whose hatred of bush has warped any sense of rational or objective judgement. In is an emotional reaction to comments that defy both common sense and are incredibly counter-intuative (ie gitmo is a gulag or rove is guilty of treason) While both sides come up with ridiculous arguments it seems the left is dominating in that game (Gitmo, "rove" non-scandal, CAFTA, call bush an SOB, social security scare tactics, war in iraq is a quagmire, etc)Those who make such outlandish arguments encourage a fanatical response because of the absurdity of their comments. While i try be fair with my comments and iavoid insults sometimes the fascist nonsense drives me up a wall also. I think this blog is very beneficial so both sides should stop insluting and keep debating.

    Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/05/2005 @ 5:05pm

69. Well, CMBENNETT23, a piece by Jonathan Chait in today's LA Times sort of indirectly says it all about the substance of your post:

    (excerpt) The style of Bush's reply is telling. Gore was trying to make a point about Bush's moral priorities by establishing a series of facts about Bush's behavior. Rather than deny having chosen tax cuts over children's healthcare, or explain his rationale for having done so, Bush changed the subject to more comfortable ground: judging people's hearts. He asked the audience to intuit, based on the way he carries himself, that he is a warmhearted person, and thus to reject out of hand any facts that might clash with this impression. The point isn't just that Bush refuses to engage with facts he finds inconvenient. (Many fail that test.) It's that Bush rejects reason itself. Reason is a process by which we draw our broader conclusions from an accumulation of specific evidence. When the evidence changes ("Hey, this Putin guy seems to be squelching dissent"), our conclusions can also ("Perhaps he doesn't love democracy as much as he said he did!"). Bush, on the other hand, arrives at his beliefs through intuition. His supporters marvel at the unshakeable certainty of his convictions. Well, no wonder.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:09pm

70. Zero, thanks for your clarification, I appreciate our dialogue on the various threads.

    There are some on both extremes who seemingly can't avoid salacious name calling instead of engaging in legitimate debate. Too bad, given our truly divided nation, we need all the opportunities we can get to engage each other.

    Posted by love liberty at 08/05/2005 @ 5:11pm

71. ALUDRA, are you like this in your personal life? Now I really don't want to or care to know any real details necessarily. But have you ever kicked out a window of car with a Kerry sticker on it?

    Posted by BSF at 08/05/2005 @ 5:12pm

72. BSF,

    That was funny.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 08/05/2005 @ 5:14pm

73. Hating bush helps keep our edge as liberals. Its a tool. We took the negative stuff from rove, the traitor, its always worked for him. Sorry the opposition is becoming a reflection of the conservative movement. Negative works ask Kerry, McCain and Cleeland.

    P.S. You Facist ;-)

    Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 5:16pm

74. More specifically, however, CMBENNETT23, your post doesn't have a leg to stand on. I hardly know where to start. At minimum, I ask you to review these elements of fascism as the generally accepted definition of the term applies, every last one of them directly attributable to this administration. And if you don't agree, you're in wholesale denial. Apologies to all for the length of the post.

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

    3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people‚s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice˜relentless propaganda and disinformation˜were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite „spontaneous‰ acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and „terrorists.‰ Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

    4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

    5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

    6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes‚ excesses.

    7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting „national security,‰ and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite‚s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the „godless.‰ A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

    9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of „have-not‰ citizens.

    10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. „Normal‰ and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or „traitors‰ was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

    14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:16pm

75. Thank you so much cm bennett. You expressed my feelings perfectly. I am on vacation and that is why I have had the time to scroll this silly website. I am a hard working very happy American who is quite successful and damn lucky and proud I have a country that gives me that chance. And yes, I lose my temper when I read such unbelievable...I dont even know what to call it...its just scary is all I can say..I think the people who want to tear down BUSH are doing it for purely political purposes and I resent it when this country has been attacked and were trying to fight back on MANY FRONTS as best as we can and all they can do is gripe. I am sorry I have flamed out on here...Too much time on the beach...I will not post here again. It has been educational in a sense I know what we are up against now....Thank you

    Posted by aludra at 08/05/2005 @ 5:17pm

76. Still wondering, ALUDRA, CMBENNETT23 et al....

    If you're of service age, why, again, are you (or possibly your children) not in Iraq facing the fire - ?

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:19pm

77. (Notice how that ilk can never answer that niggling question....)

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:21pm

78. Newt seems convinced that this is a wake up call, but clearly many on this blog are not convinced that the close election is signalling some sort of shift away from the GOP. So here are a couple questions: What *would* indicate a shift, in your opinion? Does anyone have any more detail on the race in Ohio? I'd be interested to know more about the campaigns of both candidates. It may help determine whether or not it was a "fluke".

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/05/2005 @ 5:22pm

79. But, to get back to the subject of Nichols' piece....

    The ALUDRAs of the world had BETTER get busy trying to answer these niggling questions. Their crumbling house of cards is going to depend on it. And Karl Rove can't save ALL your asses single-handledly the way he has Dumbya's.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:23pm

80. MEWSICIAN- What? you think that is a response. someone's personal judgement on bush . first of all that is not at all a fair assesment of bush. What you fail to realize is that bush' policies are the work of tens years of republican/conservative thinkers and policy makers and their views on how to handle world and domestic affairs. They are responses to many failures of the US during the 90's. Some i believe are correct while other are not, but to simplify it to a personal characteristic of bush is silly. That still doesnt address any of the points i made. if you make ridiculous arguments like the examples i listed your deserve emotional, fanatical responses, especailly as people have rebutted a majority of those argument on this post on a daily basis. for example: Here is an example of the over the top arguments that elicit such responses:

    -gitmo is like gulag -iraq is a quagmire(especially considering the progress over a mere 3 years) -bush action caused terrorism -there was no saddam terrotist connection -bush trying to steal social security from seniors -tax cuts for the rich -the rove "scandal" -hitler or fascist comments.

    i gotta go, we can continue this discussion on monday.

    Posted by cmbennett23 at 08/05/2005 @ 5:24pm

81. WEREEVERYWHERE, I know Hackett lost by 3,000 votes and change - in a HARD right district, and by a 25% greater margin than any Dem has since 1974.

    Not a fluke.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:25pm

82. CMBENNETT23, that lengthy post on fascism was not "someone's personal judgment." It is a compendium of fascism's universally recognized components, as drawn from analysis of fascist regimes through history.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:27pm

83. Moreover, CMBENNETT23, if you are going to exchange posts with me that still insist on a Saddam Hussein-9/11 connection, I'm afraid I don't have the energy. Not even BushCo is still trying to pass that one off as plausible.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:30pm

84. yes...saw the 3000 votes referred to in a couple articles..but what I'd like to learn, is why was Hackets campaign more successful than previous dems? Personal charisma, a top-notch campaign staff, his opponents campaign being poorly run?

    Posted by wereverywhere at 08/05/2005 @ 5:33pm

85. Simple: Hackett stood for something. Something more than what his handlers told him had tested well with test audiences and in focus-group polling. Very, very simple. And it's the answer to the Dems' problems, except that our rotten-with-special-interests electoral system being what it is, it's become nigh on to impossible for any "outsiders" to break in and win. My guess is Hackett worried less about pleasing everybody, and more about saying out loud, as often as possible, what he saw as being wrong with Bush's policies.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:36pm

86. MEWSIC......TO MY EARS!

    Thanks! Yeah, I know some gung-ho retired cops that said they were going to help train police in Iraq, but when it became obvious that it was really dangerous ( even in the green zone )- they decided not to go!......

    My friend , who is a retired marine, went over to help train Iraqui security forces. He just got back and said it was a joke. He said that training those guys was a waste of time. Apparently, they had to lock up many of the guys they were traing because they found out that they were informing insurgents. The rest, he said , were incompetant........

    I asked him about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqui public. He said, " yeah, the marines have a saying about the hearts and minds - put one in the heart and two in the mind "!.....

    Anyway, it's obvious that Rummy is misleading us on the progress of training Iraquis to defend themselves too.

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/05/2005 @ 5:41pm

87. For the war alone BUSH needs to be impeached immediately

    Posted by BushTheNazi at 08/05/2005 @ 5:51pm

88. My brother and my friend believe exactly as I do, FREIHEIT. Right down the line. Besides being a two-star, my friend is a grad of his service branch's higher ed institution, and a decorated Special Forces Vietnam vet. In other words, he and my brother believe the same things I do but THEY'VE BEEN THERE. They know what it means for Bush and Rumsfeld to have been too chicken to serve but gleeful at the prospect of others dying for their ideological insanity. A substantial number of the actual military leadership shares my friend's views, too, it might interest you to know - but then surely you knew that; Colin Powell, after all, was the only one of them to have seen actual battle and look what he had to say to the chickenhawks.

    Further, your feeble justifications vis a vis "I'm not a cop therefore..." are laughable. Typical response to a question for which there IS no justifiable answer - only excuses. For one thing, nobody is leading new police officers into the streets on false pretenses and asking them to lay down their lives for a lie. Crime is real; al Qaeda is a boogerman, its capabilities inflated daily to suit BushCo's purposes. (I mean, as an aside, do you even bother looking at the numbers of the amount of contractor fraud that this "war" has facilitated? Do you think that's just coincidence?? Would you be interested in a link to a piece that appeared recently in the London Review of Books DETAILING the scope of it all - because for sure you'll never read the hard data in any AMERICAN newspaper.) For another, people CHOOSE to fight crime in the streets that make up their own environment; nobody is telling them they should leave their homes and families and risk death by IED to keep some other nation's neighborhoods safe.

    Nice try, but no sale. THIS IS BUSH'S WAR, and it will be Bush's Waterloo. I understand that, at the War College, many agree Bush will be treated by history as the worst disgrace the office of tthe U.S. presidency has ever encountered. Bring THAT on.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 5:57pm

89. Mewsic....to my ears!......

    You hit it on the head brother! Anyone who thinks this war is really imperitive to our national security should shut up and get their ass over there to help! Otherwise, it's all just BS!......

    I know some retired cops who said they were going to help train Iraqui police, but when they realized how dangerous it was ( even in the green zone ) they decided not to go!.........

    My friend - a retired marine went over to help train security forces. He said it was a waste of time. They had to lock up a bunch of guys they were traing because they found out that they were informing the insurgents. The rest, he said, were just incompetant......

    I asked him about winning the hearts and minds of the Iraquis. He said, " Yeah, the marines have a saying - one in the heart two in the mind "!...... So much for good will and morale......

    Anyway, it's apparent that Rummy is misleading us on the progress of training Iraquis to defend themselves too!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/05/2005 @ 6:06pm

90. Sorry for the redundency, ask the moderator why!

    Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/05/2005 @ 6:09pm

91. I am employed, FREIHEIT. Full-time, with benefits. I make time for battles I instigate. I made the mistake of assuming we had THAT in common.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 6:11pm

92. BUSH could be the Anti-Christ

    Posted by BushTheNazi at 08/05/2005 @ 6:11pm

93. perhaps the author who claims great progress in Iraq would care to be a little more specific. what we have installed in Iraq are the trappings of democracy, not to be confused with democarcy. I think Hitler comparisons are valid, neocons have no trouble with Chamberlain comparisons. that the american people are increasingly disenchanted with the president, I mean occupant of the white house, and the war has two main causes. one is that the war was sold under false pretenses, can there be any serious argument about that? more than half the country believes Bush to be a liar. that goes double for the rest of the mis-administration. the second is that there is no defined strategy, how do we know that we're winning? freedom and democracy? we are NOT fighting an insurgency in Iraq, we are fighting the government of Iraq, they have the weapons, they have the command structure, it is actually the Shiites who are the insurgents. the occupation forces have unleashed a civil war that has been smoldering for some time , it is a conflagration now. our mercenary army, the poor saps, are not defending their country, they are defending the Shia who want to establish an islamist state, allied to Iran, which is not exactly our friend and ally. of course the kicker in all this is, surprise, oil, an increasingly scarce commodity. the BIG lie is that we are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here. we were told the same lie during the Vietnam war, it was called the domino theory then. none of the highjackers and massmurderers of 9/11 were Iraqis, they received no support from Iraq, which they did receive from our trusted allies, the Saudis and the Pakistanis, and Iraq had zero capabilities of attacking this country or our interests abroad. the problems of Iraq and the rest of the world can only be solved by slow methodical negotiations, example the troubles in northern ireland or the palestinian issue with Israel. another big lie is that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. terror is a technique used by those who are too poor to afford a large standing army, do you think they would use suicide bombers if they had real bombers and helicopter gunships? one who is a terrorist one day is the head of state the next, example, Israel, terrorist bombing of a hotel used by the british occupiers and the government of Israel later. Bin Laden achieved one of his aims with the attack against the US. the withdrawal of our army from Saudi Arabian soil. could that attack have been avoided had we withdrawn our troops before? please forgive the rambling nature of this post, at laest I have refrained from attacking the other side, and perhaps I can stimulate additional discussion. Johannesrolf

    Posted by johannesrolf at 08/05/2005 @ 6:38pm

94. You're pathetic, FREIHEIT.

    I only wish I could be there to watch you talk with my brother and my friend. It would be such fun to see what happens when people like you who aren't even capable of imagining principled opposition, let alone understanding it, come face to face with it. You have no grounds whatsoever for calling me names like liar - you just can't stand the idea that you're wrong, and that your imagined certainty regarding the viewpoints of others could also be so. Incidentally, did you think Colin Powell was a liar too, when he reminded Bush that "if you break it, you bought it?"

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 7:11pm

95. P.S. And brown-shirted, mindless unquestioning among thinking people who are leaders is not American. See you at the ballot box, indeed.

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 7:12pm

96. And one more time, I ask:

    I can assume from your response that you are not interested in serving in Iraq. Why is that? If there's a good reason, why don't you just give it and shut me up? Too old? Too young? Physical considerations that prevent it? If you have children who share your views and they're not serving, same question: why not?

    You don't have to argue with me or anybody else about it. I don't see what exorcism has to do with the question. I'm just curious about why people like you who burn with the fires of patriotism and certainty don't just go sign up and fight the bad guys. I ask this question time and time again, on blog after blog, of anybody I ever come across who is a hellfire, kick-ass supporter of this "war," and I virtually never get a direct answer.

    I just think it's funny, that's all. So do a lot of the military leaders, as a matter of fact - you know, the ones who are actually fighting this war, and who don't understand why there aren't just as many guys and gals signing up as there are yellow ribbons on all the cars. Can you or others of your patriotic persuasion enlighten me?

    Posted by mewsician at 08/05/2005 @ 7:28pm

97. the BIG lie is that we are fighting them over there so that we don't have to fight them over here

    That one kills me. So where is Afghanistan over here?

    Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 8:22pm

98. BUSH needs to be impeached!!! He is a mass murderer

    Posted by BushTheNazi at 08/05/2005 @ 9:00pm

99. Back to the topic . . .

    Mr. Gingrich says that Bush has problems with the Iraq war. Gingrich is talking in language that a politician like him understands well: poll numbers.

    The empirical evidence [startribune.com] is in, as Mr. Nichols cites: public approval of Mr. Bush's handling of the war is down to 48% and his overall approval is down to 42%. Slightly fewer Americans think he's honest than think he is not and by a slight margin, more Americans now disapprove of his handling of the war on terror than approve.

    I'd say Mr. Gingrich is on to something. At least he isn't trying to spin away the results of Ohio's second district like some others.

    Of course, 2006 is about Congressional elections, and there 60% of those surveyed expressed disapproval of the job Congress is doing.

    Now, the Democrats have developed a knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. They did so in 2000, 2002 and 2004. It looks like if the Republicans are to improve their standing in 2006, the Democrats will have to repeat that feat yet again.

    Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/05/2005 @ 9:17pm

100. It is the whole world view thing.

     Why was Iraq, after survivint the rule of a fairly nasty (not to exaggerate) tyrant; invaded, nearly destroyed, and continues to be for all practical purposes an occupied nation?

     Why are good arab muslims coming from all over for a chance to blow up Iraqi civilians? Why is it likely Iraq will disintegrate into civil war, or more likely into a islamic theocracy?

     Why does Saudi Arabia, with Billions of dollars in oil revenue, have a standard of living on the order of $2000/year?

     Why are the palestinians (those people who were living in the land of Israel after the Roman dispersion of the Jews) enduring what most be the most miserable situation of any group of people in the world? (Horrible government, continual Israeli incursions, poverty, etc)

     It is quite simple. And it all makes sense.

     God's word is true.

     "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you." God said that to Israel. And it remains true.

     This does not make those who opress and torment the enemies of Israel innocent. It just makes the opression and torment inevitable.

     Posted by jonb at 08/05/2005 @ 9:17pm

101. Anyway, I strayed off topic.

     I just get tired of people going on about this war. It is old news.

     As I posted before, the republicans will observe the results of this and other elections, and make adjustments.

     The democrats will observe the results of this and other elections, and say "See! We were RIGHT!! People are finally getting it!"

     The result will be modest gains for the republicans in the midterm elections.

     Posted by jonb at 08/05/2005 @ 9:22pm

102. By the way, freiheit, it is possible to say that you don't believe what someone says, without calling them a liar. Name calling is the forte of the progressive side.

     And MEWSICIAN, I think when you give what is anecdotal evidence to support your position, (The I know a general who says... thing) you need to realize it doesn't have much credibility. I know some military folks who have strong opinions about this war, also. While on the average, the military is pretty "right wing", you have to remember even John Kerry was a "decorated combat veteran".

     There are progressives in uniform. even > liberals. And they don't change their world view just because they fly jets.

     Posted by jonb at 08/05/2005 @ 9:35pm

103. I do think this war was "sold" on false premises.

     I don't think the reasons given for going to war were the underlying reasons.

     I do not think this makes President Bush a particularly evil or incompetent ruler.

     I also do not think that my opinion of whether we should be at war with Iraq matters a hill of beans. It isn't my job to decide if the nation goes to war.

     I think a lot of people think about it pretty much the way I do.

     SO while they may think the war was started for reasons other than those used to convince congress (not me and you, we don't get a vote) to declare war; and the reasons given to the UN were not the real reasons either; they do not feel that they personally have been lied to. And deceiving and manipulating congress is what presidents do, to some extent.

     Meanwhile, we are at war, and the only plebescite so far was the 2004 election. People got to decide then if the war thing was big enough to try somebody new, who said he was "smarter". They decided there were other issues more pressing than Iraq and "the enconomy stupid".

     In my opinion, the pressing matter was the precipitous decline of american culture. (Perversion, Immorality, and Violence).

     And the progressives are on the wrong side of that issue. Unless they get abortion out of the national political scene, it seems to me doubtful they will ever regain the white house.

     BTW, The President may have a 42% approval rating, but if the election were re-run tomorrow, with the same candidates, he would win by about the same margin.

     The democrats need to offer a credible alternative.

     Posted by jonb at 08/05/2005 @ 9:57pm

104. God's word is true. "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you." God said that to Israel. And it remains true. This does not make those who opress and torment the enemies of Israel innocent. It just makes the opression and torment inevitable.

     Well, gosh, no arguing that. Probably says that in the bible I betcha. Your god sounds a bit biased. Guess it depends on which god you worship.

     Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 10:06pm

105. Well, wait and see.

     You are obviously not obliged to agree with me.

     It is also obvious that what God has said does not depend in any way on what you or I believe. There is no power in denial, or in ignorance.

     Posted by jonb at 08/05/2005 @ 10:21pm

106. Jonb, get a grip. There is power in reality. Put away the magic books and lets all work together to solve these problems. The terrorists quote their scripture you and bush quote your scripture the Isrealis.....sheeesh come on, cut an agnostic a break.

     Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 10:34pm

107. I'm just curious about why people like you who burn with the fires of patriotism and certainty don't just go sign up and fight the bad guys. I ask this question time and time again, on blog after blog, of anybody I ever come across who is a hellfire, kick-ass supporter of this "war," and I virtually never get a direct answer.

     Well then you haven't been paying attention. I have shared on numerous threads here at the Nation. I am a vet from the 60's (earned my purple heart like more than 500,000 other guys). I am disabled now so I can't go back in, but I would if I would be of help. My 2 youngest sons have served in the Marines including one who served in the Marine Unit that was the first to cross into Baghdad. My family has had it's men serve going all the way back to the French/Indian Wars.

     You made an obvious false accusation since you know that your premise is false just based upon the numbers of men who have served. What do you think, that they were all liberals?

     I knew a few, but most were not liberals; and most were not illiterate either.

     And one last note, like all the men in my family before me, I and my sons enlisted voluntarily. It is our duty and honor to give back to the greatest nation on earth.

     I am a proud Vet. 1966-1970

     Posted by love liberty at 08/05/2005 @ 10:38pm

108. Love Liberty that is a powerful biography. But I believe the point Mewsician is truly making is would you die for your beliefs? You would. Would the others that profess belief in the reasons for this war? Would they send a son or daughter or go themselves?

     Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 10:47pm

109. Like I said, wait and see.

     However, you probably should recognize that while very few people will actually articulate what I posted earlier, since they fear the scorn of "intelligent" people like yourself, it is a commonly held view. And understanding that is beneficial if you wish to understand why people act as they do.

     There is power in reality.

     But if you try and hold the position that this world is entirely governed by naturalistic causal principles you won't be very effective.

     Because that is not reality.

     But you are an agnostic, not an atheist. You merely don't know, I suppose.

     (I used to live in a simple, sunny world where everything could be explained by science)

     Posted by jonb at 08/05/2005 @ 10:50pm

110. gotta run. May be back later. God bless all y'all.

     Posted by jonb at 08/05/2005 @ 10:53pm

111. Oh believe me I take the position that this reality may be childhood and we ain't seen nothin yet. I am truly agnostic. But I don't try to influence political discourse with my ancient scriptures.

     Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 10:55pm

112. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani told al-Jaafari that he would like the constitution to enshrine Islam as the main source of legislation, the prime minister said. From AP.

     Looks like another problem looming here Jonb.

     Posted by Salunga at 08/05/2005 @ 11:28pm

113. to say that you are tired of talking about the war is truly an immoral position, that war is waged in your name. to drag god into this discussion is pathetic, the scriptures were written by the best minds of the bronze age, that Jesus guy, who perhaps lived during the roman empire was known as the prince of peace. that the discussion turned into pissing contest between Freiheit and mewsician is a pity and not very entertaining. the post started with the near election of a dem in a previously solid repub district. that election was very much about the war and the war is the reason that the country is so divided right now, not the only one but the biggie. that someone would choose as their moniker Freiheit is most instructive, just as the word "homeland" gives me the creeps, too much like "fatherland". that Bush's numbers are tanking is beyond dispute, that this will influence the midterm elections is also beyond argument. as Bush's numbers sink further his party will distance itself from him, they don't want to go down. impeachment seems beyond possibility now, but wait, it is not impossible, there are some people in the administration who know the dirty details, Nixon looked real good just before the end. politics is not an athletic contest or a poker game wqhere winning is the only thing, it is about who we are as a nation, as a people. and in that regard we have slipped, preemptive war, torture of prisoners, prisoners disappeared, at the end of the cold war we have become the soviets, they too had a government installed in Afghanistan, with elections even. if you do not have tears to weep over the destruction of our country, in its spirit, and theirs, for real you are made of stone. a country which hasn't had a war fought on its soil cannot begin to fathom the suffering. empires can fall very quickly, and this one is tottering.

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/05/2005 @ 11:33pm

114. it is about who we are as a nation, as a people. and in that regard we have slipped, preemptive war, torture of prisoners, prisoners disappeared, at the end of the cold war we have become the soviets, they too had a government installed in Afghanistan, with elections even.

     jrolf I'm with you up to the part about Afghanistan. The rest is undeniable. We are in danger of losing our soul here. The principles of the enlightenment respect for all people. We are not Jihadists. We believe in Jefferson's principles of Life and Liberty. We need to maintain a grip on civilized behavior even if the enemy doesn't, its always been the way. Bush and Cheney are taking us to a bad place. We as a country cannot rationalize torture and humiliation because the other guy did it.

     Posted by Salunga at 08/06/2005 @ 12:08am

115. John

     You begin to shine the light of truth into the evangelic darkness, into our nations terrible night. The conservative wave of hysteria has finally broken against the liberal breakwater of one man: Paul Hackett. See how the bloodthirsty, government of the people hating, evangelic conservatives wail and nash teeth. See how they skitter for the nearest dark place. The prince of lies, the evil angel, the god of the evangelic church feels his grasp slipping. And, for the cowardly, government of the people hating conservatives, these destroyers of creation, :) nothing. Time.... will.... forget you.

     Posted by Will C. at 08/06/2005 @ 12:16am

116. Check this anyone familiar with this site?

     www.dailykos.com [dailykos.com]

     Posted by Salunga at 08/06/2005 @ 12:42am

117. Interesting perspective.

     I certainly agree this war is a bad thing. Not sure if it was necessary. But it is bad.

     I think the torture of prisoners is really stupid. Evil. It is the result of the decline of moral standards in our nation. Absolutely disgusting.

     But it isn't my responsibility. And it doesn't seem to me to be the main issue.

     That a very likeable candidate, who is charismatic and capable, can almost win in a district where there hasn't been a real election in years, against an opponent who is not very inspiring, that is not a surprise. It isn't quite a referendum on the war. However, I do think that the republican machine will take note of it, and make adjustments.

     The likely scenario is that US troops will begin to pull out in large numbers the end of this year. And that will be a "success".

     So by next November, the war will be a back burner issue for people, generally. Even if Iraq is a bad bad mess.

     My view is, the war is a fact. Unilateral withdrawl would be in the best interests of the US, short term, but it would be rather irresponsible. And it seems unlikey. So it will continue. I hope it goes well. By that I mean I hope that some sort of stable government, able to provide domestic security, will result.

     The fact that this sort of war happens is entirely consistant with my view of the world, so it isn't surprising.

     I don't think, though, that it is the main issue, when it comes to the domestic politics of the USA.

     I also think that some of those who oppose it, and who seem to so enjoy every bit of bad news, do so not because they really care about babies being blown up in Bagdad, but because they HATE President Bush, and they HATE the values and views of the right wing of the republican party, and they would be happy if the war went much worse, if it resulted in the defeat of those people at the polls.

     Just like the folks on the other side didn't really care about Monica Lewinski. They just wanted President Clinton's blood.

     I said some not all. TO some, the war is a political football.

     This war was not the main issue in 2004. If it had been, President Bush might have lost, as he was unable to articulate a clear and logical defense for engaging in this war, and it was pretty clear he misjudged how it would go. (Who would think that non-Iraquis would start an "insurgency" which was nothing more than blowing up Iraquis in hopes of starting a civil war?)

     Perhaps it was the issue, but his opponent failed to make clear how he was a better choice on that issue.

     More likely, people really didn't care.

     By the way, God is always in the discussion. Sometimes not explicitly. But people's beliefs about the design and purpose of the creation (even if they believe none exist) profoundly affect their views of things.

     And in attempting to understand people, I find it much more helpful if they are up front about it. Because otherwise, it can be almost impossible to understand people. Especially people who have significantly different starting assumptions.

     I'm not suggesting people should agree with me. That is up to them. But I try and be as open about why I think what I do as I can. I find it helpful when others do the same.

     Not everyone agrees, but hey, not everyone likes CHOCOLATE even!

     Sorry for rambling on...

     Posted by jonb at 08/06/2005 @ 12:57am

118. Much of what has been discussed in this thread is about what members of the military on the ground in Iraq think about our actions there. And I have to confess to being unable to draw any conclusions from the bits of evidence within this thread and in my own experience. I know people who have come back shellshocked and horrified, and others who have come back with personality changes toward violence. Yet I know a good, decent couple of die-hard Republicans, he an ex-Marine. They have a young son who is in Iraq for his second tour and Dad wishes he were young enough to re-enlist so he could be there to do his part. They fret but they're proud.

     I think that the war will ultimately accomplish nothing positive for this country and that Iraq's future is still too murky to predict. But as for those who are directly involved, I cannot be more concerned or sympathetic. I think it might have been Freiheit (I apologize if this is a mistake, sir) earlier this week who tossed out a quip against liberals being able to "support the troops." I have no ribbons on my car, but don't think for a minute than anyone in this country wishes ill of our soldiers.

     To the issue at hand, I tend to agree with Zero's assessment that this election result is not a harbinger of good times for Dem's. But just like Dean's early success showed, what the former party of the left needs more than anything is energy and strength. The larger problem is that there is no one of a national stature currently capable of assuming the role for the Dem's. I had always admired Kerry before he decided to run because he seemed to be a strong voice of compassion, integrity and wisdom. I hadn't realized that once away from his bits on The News Hour he would become a shaky, stupid old man. Obama has the energy, but has not demonstrated a bit of backbone in his votes thus far.

     Oh, if only my little vegan buddy Kucinich could sway the 90% of Dem's who would never vote for him to just say "what the heck" and give him a shot...

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/06/2005 @ 12:57am

119. Ya know guys and gals, I just have to ask a big favor...

     PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE ignore the Wingnuts! They do not come here and post becuse they want to debate anything. They DO NOT want to learn anything. All they want is to disrupt, and so far they are doing a GREAT job of it because others are RESPONDING TO THEM. By responding to them you give them power... please dont give them anymore power. PLEASE!

     Posted by BrownSound at 08/06/2005 @ 01:16am

120. Liberty"....

     Too bad your government would and has gladly exploited your sincere patriotism. Even more sad is the fact that you can't see the truth - perhaps because it would be too painful. Your sacrifice is acknowledged and the fact that you served in an unjust war does not reflect on your honor. The fact that you still pursue a blind allegiance is something you are responsible for and does , however reflect on your abilty to reason. You can continue to lie to yourself but most Americans are on to this one . At least 60% of Americans ain't buying it anymore, and that number is rising!.......

     Serving may be your duty and honor but my first allegiance is to the truth and I can't say we have fought a war for the right reasons since WW-2 . And yes I have the luxury, as I'm sure you would point out - to not give my life for some half baked, imperialistic , neo con illusion - because I live in the land of the free - and because God gave me a brain!......

     As I've said before you militaristic types have a fraternal compulsion that defies all logic. You place your sense of duty and honor above all else and thats how you end up geting killed for your country. Right or wrong the reasons don't seem to matter - your government counts on your blind faith and they exploit it! It's an honorable sacrifice in a war like WW-2 . In NAM or Iraq it's just a senseless trajedy.

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/06/2005 @ 01:17am

121. I think I was called a wingnut......

     Funny, I was looknig in the Bossard catalog yesterday, and they sell 3 different kinds of wingnuts.

     One looked like mickey mouse ears. One had these ear things that looked like- do you remember the movie "gremlins"? Don't feed them after midnight!

     I disremember the third.

     Could you be more specific?

     Seriously, that someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are stupid, decieved, ignorant or deluded, necessarily.

     It is possible that they have different underlying assumptions, different hierarchy of values, or may actually know something you don't.

     Posted by jonb at 08/06/2005 @ 01:26am

122. Wow... The Nation (both the journal and the entity) has drifted so far to the extreme right that they are now giddy about the near victory of a pro-war imperialist who happens to call himself a "democrat", and some how touting this a jumping off point for progressives. Please. Disinvest your selves from the false paradigm of "democrat" and "republican". There are only imperialists and those who oppose them. If we continue to blindly follow the paradigm as framed by the imperialists, we will suffer the same fate as the Germans in the thirties. The Nazis did not build the camps the day after they burned the Reichstag. There was a slow erosion of civil liberties, made under the presumption of "protection" and "safety", (sound familiar?) ultimately ending with the complete domination of a murderous dictatorship. The de-humanization of the Jews began with the de-humanization of the German masses, as they continued to support the electoral paradigm of the time, always believing it wouldn't get any worse, allowing themselves to be constantly herded to the right until there was no escape. This is the thread we should be discussing, not that budding fascist, Hackett.

     Posted by carpenters at 08/06/2005 @ 01:27am

123. Unless you are brave enough to engage them on that level, you won't accomplish much.

     Posted by jonb at 08/06/2005 @ 01:27am

124. CARPENTERS, I largly agree with you. I think however that the reason the Nation like other left-leaning pubs are so giddy about Hackett is the same reason they were so giddy about CAFTA's narrow victory... they are willing to call ANYTHING a victory becuse they are soooo sick of losing. Not until the grassroots starts to vote out ANY and EVERY Republicrat that's in congress, not until the grassroots are willing to put a Republican in office instead of a Republicrat will the Dems change and FINALLY begin to win.

     Oh yeah, another reason that libs like Hackett is becuse he provides proof of how to win. The sad fact is that the Dems wont follow his lead.

     Posted by BrownSound at 08/06/2005 @ 01:42am

125. brownsound I think you misunderstood my point. The electoral paradigm itself is the problem. Until the grassroots stops believing that the electoral process is an avenue for change and takes to the streets to fight for change, there will be no change. As I said in my original post, there are imperialists and anti-imperialists. "Democrat" and "republican" are merely different labels for the same thing.

     Posted by carpenters at 08/06/2005 @ 01:58am

126. FREIHEIT - thanks for the reality check!

     Posted by jonb at 08/06/2005 @ 02:02am

127. What exactly do you mean by taking to the streets?

     Protest?

     Posted by jonb at 08/06/2005 @ 02:06am

128. CARPENTERS, there are repubicans and Democrats that are not imperialists. I am not an imperialist and I just like others in this country can run for office and win. People taking to the streets is ALWAYS a good idea because it helps keep the government in check no matter who is in office. I understood your point I just did not agree with all of it.

     Posted by BrownSound at 08/06/2005 @ 02:09am

129. I've always felt there was something undemocratic about people walking around in the streets, trying to get attention, as if the fact they were making such a fuss meant their opinion should be taken more seriously than people who went about their business.

     It sort of violates the principle of one man, one vote.

     I do realize it can be effective, sometimes. But against serious fascists, it is just Tianiman Square.

     Posted by jonb at 08/06/2005 @ 02:13am

130. Put things in perspective.

     Every week, americans kill 20,000 of their own children.

     Nobody really protests.

     All those right wing religious zealots just mind their own business.

     Posted by jonb at 08/06/2005 @ 02:33am

131. but they did vote.....

     Posted by jonb at 08/06/2005 @ 02:36am

132. there's quite a bit of disinformation out there, yes children are killed but that noone cares or does anything is not true, there are shelters and neighborhood marches as well as cops and judges who are keeping those who kill accountable. that is not something that you can say about the people who started this insane war. as far as taking to the streets goes, the huge gatherings in Washington in the 60s against the war and for civil rights had an enormous effect. and people will still be talking about Tienman square long after you and I are gone, it will always be a symbol of defiance of dictatorships..as far as the opinions about the war of the people who are fightng it, remember to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. also they are subject to group think, in fact part of military training consists of stripping away individualism in favor of allegiance to the group. wars for those who fight them and those who order them to do so, are always started for the best of reasons. also dictatorship and fascism come in the name of freedom and liberty, part of Hitler's success came from the promise of freeing the country from the communist menace, ditto the Vietnam war. of course I read Daily Kos among many, many others. I find Juan Cole's Informed Comment very useful and Corn and Tom Dispatch and media matters is good at exposing the halftruths and outright lies of our conservative, no reactionary pundits.and to old see you at the ballot box I say, if the last two US elections had happened in a country far away, where we had observers both of those elections would have been declared suspect, I cite widespread voter suppression in Ohio and the fiasco in Florida. Imagine the election decided by the court because of what happened in the state where the candidate's brother is the governor, and voters in democrat districts waiting ten hours to cast their ballots, a problem that strangely did not occur in republican districts. but maybe this is off topic, my apologies.the roman empire took a few hundred years to disintegrate, the british empire fell in a few decades, the american empire will fall, in a few ...?

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/06/2005 @ 06:44am

133. Did MEWSICIAN actually post "the Hackett VICTORY"??? yesterday?

     as to Mr Nichols use of Gingrich's "fear"...the quote from him was "I don't think this is time to panic, but I think it's time to think". So is Gingrich "whistling past the graveyard" or merely saying the GOP needs to "not take the elections for granted and work hard"?

     Frankly, I think if Hackett had won, this would all be sounding a little less desperate. "Hacket 'came close' in a strong Republican district"? Yes...running as a "Republican-lite" who left his stance on Bush and the Iraq War "ambiguous" at best. and Yes...versus a Republican candidate who was A. not the incumbent, and B. voted FOR tax increases. And finally, turn-out was like 30%, most of it energized Democrats looking for a "post 2004 shot in the arm".

     Only one thing will REALLY tell how 2006 will go....and that's 2006!

     Posted by Mask at 08/06/2005 @ 08:28am

134. Holy Peter! 166 comments thus far! A record for a Nation blog, isn't it?

     A suggestion: To make it easier to scroll down and read, if one wants to make reference to an article, perhaps we could just post the link rather than copying and pasting the entire article. A few lines or a paragraph, cool; but the other way takes up too much space and makes the blog a chore to scroll through with a laptop trackpad. All right, enough of this: Back to business.

     Posted by Kevin Collins at 08/06/2005 @ 1:00pm

135. thank you NN for some kind words and even those that were overly critical were at least well intended.

     I think the one serious flaw in the logic you presented as to loyalty for a just vs unjust war is the same question that continues to divide the country today.

     Who ultimately decides what is a just or unjust war? Most will agree where division is deeply felt at the time of the divide, history will at least offer some perspective. For those of faith, ultimately it will be God who renders the final decision.

     I have peace with my decisions and support of 'Nam and Iraq (though for very different reasons for each of those wars).

     Perhaps there are other factors that cause the type of divide evident in dialogue such is found in this blog. For instance, with my family background of military service, it was inconceivable to me that I wouldn't be fighting in war by the time I was an adult. That was the history of our family and nation.

     For others, perhaps your own background NN which I admit I don't know, perhaps you come from a family background with an entirely different attitude about war, military service, and the ultimate sense of duty, honor and submission to authority that accompany those who serve in the military.

     It is a good question for reflection among the various participants in this blog. It might even provide some analysis on the true reasons for such disparity between the political philosophies represented.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/06/2005 @ 2:24pm

136. Gee. I see everyone's been busy while I took a break for dinner and some sleep. Let me get my purse out, FREIHEIT, and start swinging again.

     As for LOVE LIBERTY and NO NONSENSE's exchange over war service - it's my view, as the sister and friend of those mythical service people to which I earlier referred (and is it also not appropriate for me to mention that my late father was a WWII vet, JONB - ?), I strongly oppose anyone who would vilify members of the military for their war participation. They're just making good on the commitment they undertook when they agreed to serve. A free nation needs defense - though, the Constitution and Federalist Papers alone will tell you, certainly not THIS level of standing-army madness; that's another of my mythical general friend's favorite soapbox topics. The people who fight a war are not responsible for it, in the big picture - the leaders are. Can't shoot the messenger. LL, don't misread anything I've said to suggest that I disparage your service. Never have, never will. That's one of the reasons my mythical general friend and I have been good pals for some 30 years, ever since he was my high school English teacher way back when.

     NN, your 1:17 a.m. post kicked butt.

     BROWNSOUND - on the subject of ignoring the idiots, see my 4:42 p.m. post of yesterday.

     JONB - "name-calling is the forte of the progressive side" - ? HUH?? Really? Did we launch Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter et al? An accurate reading of the historical record since 2000 will confirm otherwise as far as which side first took the dialogue so much further into the gutter. And as for your being leery of "taking it to the streets" - I'm similarly confused. Do you not understand that the Constitutional framework enshrines this activity? That many, many constructs of our government - right to assemble, right to publish satire (see The People vs. Larry Flynt) and so much else - were established expressly so that Americans for all time would be free to protest their leaders if they so choose?

     Posted by mewsician at 08/06/2005 @ 3:38pm

137. Feel like talking religion right about now. And I feel like doing so by quoting historical figures. let's go....

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:15pm

138. A big debate lately is whether or not Intelligent Design should be taught in Biology class. I've read many articles that argue ID doesn't belong in Biology class, but it's perfectly fine to discuss in Philosophy or Religion class. I agree.

     "The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost their power of reasoning" -Voltaire, French Philosopher and Writer

     Perfect.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:22pm

139. To Urmygyro:

     The matter addressed by Mr. Nichols is that Mr. Bush and the Republican Party are losing support over Mr. Bush's handling (or mishandling) of the war in Iraq.

     How is your 5:22 post germane to this issue?

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/06/2005 @ 5:28pm

140. "If there is any religion that could respond to the needs of modern science, it would be Buddhism." -Albert Einstein

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:29pm

141. "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt science and reason as our guidelines." -Bertrand Russell

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:31pm

142. "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." -Henry Louis Mencken, American Humorist and Journalist

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:37pm

143. I turn my attentions elsewhere when the talk turns to religion - from either camp. Talk about a useless endeavor. My God vs Your God. Great stuff. Nowhere an empirical fact, testable hypothesis, piece of hard data or unimpeachable truth to be found by anyone involved. Great basis for a debate. PLEASE, URMYGYRO and all the rest, above, who seem determined to introduce this hopeless notion into the conversation......RESIST THE URGE. And by the way - I say this as a lifelong, practicing Presbyterian.

     Posted by mewsician at 08/06/2005 @ 5:41pm

144. This one goes out to Love Liberty:

     "The Bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." -Abraham Lincoln

     All you Biblical literalists and fundamentalists should realize that the greatest American President disrespects those who turn their thought process and reasoning over to the Christian Bible.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:43pm

145. "In some awful, strange, paradoxical way, atheists tend to take religion more seriously than the practitioners." -Jonathon Miller

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:47pm

146. "The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music." -George Carlin

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:50pm

147. "Religion is an allusion and it derives its strength from the fact that if falls within our instinctual desires." -Sigmund Freud

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:52pm

148. "Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God - as if the way to God was not open to every man alike." -Thomas Paine

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 5:56pm

149. "The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that is is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other." -Alexis de Tocqueville, French Historian and Political Scientist

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 6:11pm

150. "Marge, there's an empty spot I've always had inside me. I tried to fill it with family, religion, community service, but those were dead ends. I think this chair is the answer." -Homer Simpson

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 6:14pm

151. "The greatest tragedy in mankind's history may be the hijacking of morality by religion." -Arthur Clarke

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 6:15pm

152. "Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religions." -Scott Adams

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 6:18pm

153. "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." -George Orwell

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 6:23pm

154. to urmygyro: stifle yourself , Edith

     Posted by johannesrolf at 08/06/2005 @ 6:51pm

155. Listen to your heart, and if you can't hear it, just kill'em all and let God sort them out. HA-HA.......

     Was that too cynical?

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/06/2005 @ 7:05pm

156. "Faith is a euphemism for prejudice and religion is a euphemism for superstition." -Paul Keller, German Writer

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 7:05pm

157. .......intended to be sarcastic!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/06/2005 @ 7:06pm

158. "A cult is a religion with no political power." -Thomas Wolfe

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 7:06pm

159. "I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States." -Thomas Edison

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 7:11pm

160. Seriousley, I really struggle with the concept of faith. Too much bad shit has been perpetrated by those who considered themselves to be fine Christians. Did folks go church and pray after lynchings in the south? Damn right they did! Does BUSH pray every night before he makes another bone headed decision! You better believe it!......

     So, can I possibly be on the same wave lenght , with the same God? Man, one of us has to have the wrong number - and I know it ain't me cause I DON'T KNOW NUTHIN ABOUT KILLIN NO BABIES!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/06/2005 @ 7:16pm

161. "In the long term we can hope that religion will change the nature of man and reduce conflict. But history is not encouragin gin this respect. The bloodiest wars in history have been religous wars." -Richard Nixon

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 7:20pm

162. "Christianity is the most materialistic of all religions" -William Temple

     Hence many Christians get upset when people who truly believe in separation of church and state request that religious artificats be removed from publicly funded property.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 7:27pm

163. "I'm religiously opposed to religion" -Victor Hugo

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 7:28pm

164. "Religion is a monumental chapter in the history of human egotism" -William James

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 7:50pm

165. "I have heard with admiring submission the experience of the lady who declared that the sense of being perfectly well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquility which religion is powerless to bestow." -Ralph Waldo Emerson

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 7:55pm

166. "Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion. Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science." -Gary Zukav

     but let's spend time teaching ID in biology class. That'll help America progress within the world science community.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 8:14pm

167. I'd like to see historical quotes from the other perspective. If you'd like to offer them.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/06/2005 @ 9:23pm

168. Kevin and Mewsician I agree with you both we don't have a Dem with the guts to say it was wrong.End it.How about the Green Party?Don't know a thing about them but somewhere out there there has to be someone who believes that America can be saved from the monarchy that King George has created.He has gotten a lot of his power from his pro-life views.The only problem with that is he is pro-life only up to the point when the life draws breath.After that forget it.All of his social issues are against people(unless they are very very rich people)But all of the pro-lifers voted for him for that reason and no matter what else he does as long as he keeps thumping his Bible they'll be loyal to him.Disgusting isn't it.

     Posted by BusyHands at 08/07/2005 @ 02:50am

169. To URMYGYRO: I'm lovin' it! Keep it up! I am so sick of the Christian fundamentalist Taliban that have taken over this country, and try to impose their goofy beliefs on everybody else, and force their crap into the public schools. I love reading the list of great thinkers who oppose religious dogma. You are good!

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 10:03am

170. Back to the subject of Bush's War: Now that more than 50% of the public do not support the war, the fact that the Democratic Party bigshots still refuse to call for withdrawal of troops shows the complete failure of the Party. As a progressive, I find very little reason to vote for a Democrat.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 10:10am

171. Another thought: Hackett is no peacenik. He follows the Democratic line that criticizes the conduct of the war, but does NOT call for withdrawal. That is a recipe for endless occupation and killing. And the pro-war Democrats join Bush with blood on their hands.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 10:30am

172. "He who troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind."

     Posted by hhemwm at 08/07/2005 @ 11:22am

173. I don't think a few quotes by some famous minds and/or personalities will debunk religion.

     Posted by hhemwm at 08/07/2005 @ 11:25am

174. Phil;

     Don't kid yourself. You think complete withdrawal will end the killing? If we leave that place will come apart at the seams. If we're mad at Bush, as we should be, Our real reason for anger should be because he has created such a stuation - that no matter what we do a lot more people are going to die. If we leave there will be alot more death and chaos - it just won't be Americans dieing....

     Is it possible that if we just wash our hands of this thing and go home now that the damage we will have done will be greater than if we stayed and tried to sort it all out? My hate for Bush doesn't bias my thinking in this regard and I'm not inclined to eat my own like you! So, spare me the devisive rhetoric about Dem's with blood on their hands. It's just shows that your hate of Bush is more important than a solution to the problem.

     I hope I'm not hearing the rational of those so cynical that they fear that if we stay it might actually work out in the long haul - those that would actually hope for failure just to legitimize their hate of Bush! .......

     I am delighted that Americans are waking up to the boondoggle in Iraq. Hopefully it will pressure Bush to find a constructive resolution to this mess, but just bailing out will not be constructive. We should not give up on the idea of trying to make this right, although , admittadly , the chances look grim. But, it is our duty to try. We broke it, we should try to fix it.

     I don't think there is any such thing as a pro-war Democrat. Unless that just decribes anyone that in your mind is not a good Democrat because they don't buy your less than constructive positon.

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/07/2005 @ 11:32am

175. NO-NONSENSE: Thanks for your post at 11:32. Yours is the voice of the constructive opposition, and it is important that it be heard more often. I supported the liberation of Iraq and I support its reconstruction; but I am no Bush partisan, and would have liked to have voted for a Democrat in the last election.

     Posted by RonS at 08/07/2005 @ 12:03pm

176. Frank:

     That works for me! But, how realistic is it? Bolten isn't going sign on to that one! Hell, the fact that he shoved Bolten down our throats means that he has no interest in appeasing the UN.

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/07/2005 @ 12:30pm

177. To NO-NONESENSE: Biden was on every talk show leading up to the Bush invasion, saying Iraq had WMD and war was inevitable. There are other prominent Democrats who were cheerleaders for the war. Every Democrat who voted to authorize the illegal attack on Iraq and Bush have much blood on their hands...U.S. and Iraqi blood.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 12:37pm

178. To No-Nonsense:

     That's a fine post at 11:32. I'd like to elaborate.

     Bush and his aides lied to get us into this situation. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism or disarming a nation that, in fact, was already disarmed. It wasn't remotely related to national security. It was a resource war disguised as dealing with an immediate threat that was never convincingly demonstrated to have been present.

     Bush and his partisans may spin and deny and obfuscate all they like, but that he lied is as firmly established as the fact that the world is round. As far as I am concerned, it is no longer an open question.

     However, how to play the hand we've been dealt as a result of this subterfuge is a separate issue and it is an open question.

     Iraq could very likely have disintegrated following Saddam's downfall or death, even if Bush had not invaded. He governed with a iron fist and placed Sunni Arabs at the top of the food chain above Shias and Kurds, whom he oppressed miserably and even murdered en masse from time to time. Even without the neocons messing it up, we quite like would have seen:

     * Shias, who became a numerical majority during Saddam's rule, make a move for power, employing both the moral authority of leaders like Ayatollah Sistani and armed militias led by populist firebrands like Moqtaba.

     * Kurdish leaders making alliances with other ethnic/sectarian groups while the idea of declaring an independent Kurdistan remains current among rank-and-file Kurds.

     * Sunni Arabs resisting the loss of the power they enjoyed under Saddam, even with arms.

     That's pretty much what we have. The presence of US forces alters and complicates the details, but it could not preventing the struggle. Civil war was always a possibility in a post-Saddam Iraq and it seems problematic as to whether the presence of US troops can prevent it.

     We, the American people, have an interest in a stable Iraq. We want a stable Iraq that will be strong enough to keep people like Zarqawi or anybody else who would ally themselves with al Qaida in check. Iraq as it is now is unable to do that, even with American troops present.

     Zarqawi had little room to maneuver in Iraq while Saddam was in power. Many blame the invasion for providing him an opportunity. This may be only partly true. Zarqawi's opportunity was advanced with the downfall of Saddam as much as with the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil with which to direct resentment. However, even without those foreign troops, Zarqawi would have behaved much as he has in the wake of Saddam's downfall or death: he would have allied himself with Sunni Arabs against the Shia, whom he regards as heretics. Perhaps he would have also allied himself with al Qaida, but without the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil, this would have fizzled; foreign occupation of Iraq is a far greater conduit for jihadist activity than Shia control of Iraq.

     In this respect, the invasion of Iraq was not only based on a pack of lies, but was quite likely a monumental blunder; it had nothing to do with fighting terror, yet its effect has been to strengthen the hand of terrorists in Iraq. But I digress.

     The questions become:

     * whether the presence of foreign troops in Iraq stabilizes or destabilizes any potential Iraqi regime; and

     * whether the presence troops, definitely a conduit for terrorist activity, assists or hinders the goal of containing or eliminating international terrorism.

     Have at it.

     Posted by Jack Rabbit at 08/07/2005 @ 12:38pm

179. PHIL;

     Your going off half- cocked again! Look, Biden , Kerry and many of others, initially wanted to believe our president and his " evidence "! You have to put this in the post 911 conext of national unity and a common goal- which we now know in hindsight they exploited. However, because some of us were duped by the administration's Machiavellian tactics doesnt mean we have blood on our hands. It just means that "we" were fools to trust him!

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/07/2005 @ 1:11pm

180. NO-NONESENSE: Are you really so naiive as to believe that smart people like Kerry and Biden were fooled by "faulty intelligence"? Anybody who reads the Nation (or any other progressive mag) would have known that the evidence of WMD by Saddam was weak or nonexistent. And Democrats that voted for war also knew that a unilateral attack and invasion of Iraq was a violation of the U.N. Charter, which the U.S. is a signatory. No, they knew what they were doing. And they were also obeying the unseen influential hand of AIPAC, the lobby for Israel. Most Democrats in Congress are bought off by AIPAC, and never vote against the interests of AIPAC. (Don't start with any "anti-Semetic" slanders- I have Jewish friends.) Those who defend the Democrats must admit, if they are honest, that the Democrats are more dependent on AIPAC money than Republicans. And AIPAC(Israel) wants the U.S. to fight their wars in the Middle East. So the Democrats waved the flag,followed the manipulation of AIPAC, and voted for war. And I think it was and is shameful.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 1:33pm

181. PHILBQ, if what you say about Democrats and AIPAC is true, can you produce the numbers? Or do you have a credible website you can cite for our examination?

     Posted by hhemwm at 08/07/2005 @ 1:55pm

182. Couldn't it also be said that many Democrats are no different than Republicans in their faith in American exceptionalism? Why say it was AIPAC or Haliburton or EXXON. Why not suggest that perhaps a lot of the support came from a genuine patriotic fervor that was predicated, in part, on an abiding faith in America's moral exceptionalism?

     Everyone wants someone to blame or to find an unseen hand. Corporations? Sure. Israel? Why not? Perhaps a lot of what happened is because when this country was attacked the drums of war beat very loudly and many people were swept along because they were afraid?

     Posted by hhemwm at 08/07/2005 @ 1:58pm

183. We all know that when the crowd gets rolling it is the rare individual who stands before it and yells "STOP!"

     Posted by hhemwm at 08/07/2005 @ 1:59pm

184. More thoughts on Iraq: Of course a U.S. withdrawal will not end the violence. Iraq is an artificial creation of the British. There is no feeling of national unity. Everything is sectarian: Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd. These groups will never co-exist. After a U.S. pullout(if that ever happens), there will be a fragmenting of Iraq into Sunni(central),Shiite(south), and Kurd(north) regions. This is nature taking its course. It is not the U.S. role to act as arbiter. But the truth is that the U.S. will not be pulling out: now that the U.S. has Iraqi oil under control, it will not let it go.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 2:03pm

185. HHEMWM: do you know nothing about the workings of political Washington? Anybody on Capitol Hill knows of the power of AIPAC. They are deadly afraid of AIPAC. Anyone who is critical of Israeli govt. behavior(illegal occupation of Palestine,human rights violations, Rachel Corrie, etc.)is threatened with removal from office (Sheila McKinney of Georgia) by AIPAC. AIPAC is the tail that wags the dog of Congress. And now AIPAC is pushing for military action against Iran. Just watch- the propaganda machine is starting up again. And the Democrats will jump to the tune again.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 2:14pm

186. Golly...I'm sorry if I've popped your myth bubble about the Demos being always good, and Republicans being bad.(Republicans ARE always bad) The Progressive Caucus in the House of Representatives are great Democrats. They believe in peace and justice for all people, even Palestinians. I respect them. But Biden, Kerry, etc. are not worth supporting.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 2:50pm

187. I really don't understand this bit about oil.

     How does the US have Iraqi oil under control now, in any meaningful way, that they did not have a few years ago?

     Iraq pumps oil. We pay for the oil. They consume the money, and have nothing to show for it, in the end. Same as the Saudis.

     What is this Oil thing?

     I have always been of the opinion that it was more mindless ranting from the far left, but that might just be because no one has bothered to explain it.

     Is the US government getting free oil from Iraq?

     I don't think the Iraqi of Kuaiti, or Saudi governments can stop pumping oil. It would be the equivalent of the US stopping collecting income taxes. It is their principal revenue stream.

     Can somebody explain, or it this just another irrational slander?

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 2:59pm

188. Clarifying my previous post:

     I refer to the line that the invasion of Iraq is about "Oil".

     It was true of the invasion of Kuait a few years back.

     But this is a different war.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 3:02pm

189. Of course whoever controls Iraq will sell oil. The question is who makes the money? Will it be an Iraqi company who uses the vast income for developement of Iraq, or will the money enrich U.S. companies and whatever Iraqi puppets set up by the U.S? The great game in the economic and military world is control of dwindling oil resources. That is why the U.S. govt. continues to pour millions of barrels of oil into the Strategic Reserve.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 3:08pm

190. Here we go again.

     Giddyup...

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 3:22pm

191. Phil;

     " nature taking it's course " is a fatalisic attitude that applies to weather and the flow of rivers not the course of human events.....

     Having said that, I fully understand your assertion. Again , however, There is perhaps a chance that something good can be extracted from this mess. Hopefully, some kind of stability will be achieved, a representational government may evolve and they'll get tired of us pilfering oil profits and ask us to leave!....

     I think , given that it is not likely that Bush will change course ,that this is the best we can hope for at this point. Still, unless your a fatalist , there is always reason to hope for something better.

     And , yes, it is our responcibilty to be the arbitors of the mess we created - unfortunately....

     Beating the dead horse that we all pretty much acknowledge serves no purpose. Although it may make you feel better to bitch about it! I don't know how lamenting about the lies and deceptions that got us here will help at this point. Until we get new leadership it ain't going to change. Israels influence will always effect our Middle east policy. Like it or not , that won't change. Even new leadership won't change much. Maybe it will mean that there will be a little nore prudence, finness and deplomacy though!......

     So , like I said, you can still hope, but you have to realistic expectations too!....

     The bottom line is this..... until we become energy independant we're stuck with the Israeli's and the Saudi's !

     Posted by NO-NONSENSE at 08/07/2005 @ 3:34pm

192. Great synopsis Jack Rabbit. Obviously it will destabilize, until the people of Iraq are willing to stand up for themselves as a unified nation, but with years of domination the majority are just rabbits hiding in their holes unwilling to get involved as such no amount of our support will bring about a speedy resolve. We learned in Vietnam that it is impossible to defeat a insurgent force defending their homeland or in this situation their national religious idealism. Unfortunately we opened Pandora's Box and have created a incubus for all of the Islamic terrorist organizations in the world to have a national sovereignty, we cannot desert this situation without creating a greater global threat. The only real resolve is to get the global community to engage. Unfortunately as long as the current administration is completely in the dark with their only goal being the support their "friends" at any costs puts us in an untenable position. Unfortunately our American way of life is not important to the needs of those in power only their greed is in their interests. Who said that reality is perception hopefully there is hope in the recent Ohio results showing that even the conservative right is starting to ask real questions and finding the answers not to their satisfaction they will rebel Mr. Hackett has shown the way.

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/07/2005 @ 3:35pm

193. Jack Rabbit, I think your post of 12:38 today is absolutely wonderful. I'm not certain why there has been no response from those who see our activities there as a success, nor why no one has followed up. Perhaps it was too complete.

     The "oil thing" has been wonderfully swept under the debris we have created in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh that's right. We're still fighting those people in Afghanistan, too. And what was that all about anyway? Osama? Guess not, since the manhunt fizzled pretty quickly. And our cozy if prickly relationships with allies like Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and the other clan of Stans? Are we working with them to promote regional stability? Are we aiding their deprived citizens with offers of food, infrastructural support, education, and the fight for human rights? Or is there something else? Something dark and gloppy that makes our Beamers and Benzers purr so sensuously.

     I think Phil might be distorting the Democrats' problem slightly by focusing only on AIPAC. There are certainly other organizations lobbying for this, that and the other thing that have the ears and pockets of most members of Congress. But I absolutely agree that anyone who delved beneath the superficial mush that was dished out in 2002 about our war on terror could determine that all was not as clear as it was being portrayed. Democrats who supported the Presidents approval for war in the fall of 2002 were either asleep or willfully ignorant.

     What I continue to wonder is what the Democrats fear will happen if they behave on principle.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 3:48pm

194. I have a problem with the Ten Commandments. Here it is: Why are there ten? We don't need that many. I think the list of commandments was deliberately and artificially inflated to get it up to ten. It's clearly a padded list.

     Here's how it happened: About five thousand years ago, a bunch of religious and political hucksters got together to figure out how they could control people and keep them in line. They knew people were basically stupid and would believe anything they were told, so these guys announced that God - God personally - had given one of them a list of ten commandments that he wanted everyone to follow. They claimed the whole thing took place on a mountaintop, when no one else was around.

     But let me ask you something: When these guys were sittin' around the tent makin' all this up, why did they pick ten? Why ten? Why non nine, or eleven? I'll tell you why. Because ten sounds important. Ten sounds official. They know if they tried eleven, people wouldn't take them seriously. People would say, "What're you kiddin' me? The Eleven Commandments? Get the fuck outta here!"

     But ten! Ten sounds important. Ten is the basis for the decimal system; it's a decade. It's a psychologically satisfying number: the top ten; the ten most wanted; the ten best-dressed. So deciding on the ten commandments was clearly a marketing decision. And it's obviously a bullshit list. In truth, it's a political document, artifially inflated to sell better.

     I'm going to show you how you can reduce the number of commandments and come up with a list that's a bit more logical and realistic. We'll start with the first three, and I'll use the Roman Catholic version because those are the ones I was fed as a little boy.

     I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT MAKE STRANGE GOD BEFORE ME.

     THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN.

     THOU SHALT KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH.

     Okay, right off the bat, the first three commandments - pure bullshit. "Sabbath day", "Lord's name", "strange gods". Spooky language. Spooky language designed to scare and control primitive people. In no way does superstitious mumbo jumbo like this apply to the lives of intelligent, civilized humans in the twenty-first century. You throw out the first three commandments, and you're down to seven.

     HONOR THEY FATHER AND MOTHER.

     This commandment is about obedience and respect for authority; in other words it's simply a device for controlling people. The truth is, obedience and respect should not be granted automatically. They should be based on the parents' (or the authority figure's) performance. Some parents deserve respect. Most of them don't. Period. We're down to six.

     Now, in the interest of logic - something religion has a really hard time with - I'm going to skip around the list a little bit.

     THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

     THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

     Stealing and lying. Actually, when you think about it, these two commandments cover the same sort of behavior: dishonesty. Stealing and lying. So we don't need two of them. Instead, we combine these two and call it "Thou shalt not be dishonest." Suddently we're down to five.

     And as long as we're combining commandments I have two others that belong together:

     THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY

     THOU SHALT NOT COVET THEY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE

     Once again, these two prohibit the same sort of behavior; in this case, marital infidelity. The difference between them is that coveting takes place in the mind. And I don't think you should outlaw fantasizing about someone else's wife, otherwise what's a guy gonna think about when he's flogging his dong?

     But marital fidelity is a good idea, so I suggest we keep the idea and call this commandment "Thou shalt not be unfaithful." Suddenly we're down to four.

     And when you think about it further, honesty and fidelity are actually parts of the overall same value. So, in truth, we could combine the two honesty commandments with the two fidelity commandments, and, using positive languag instead of negative, call the whole thing "Thou shalt always be honest and faithful." And now we're down to three.

     THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS

     This one is just plain stupid. Coveting your neighbor's goods is what keeps the economy going: Your neighbor gets a vibrator that plays "O Come All Ye Faithful", and you want to get one, too. Coveting creates jobs. Leave it alone.

     You throw out coveting and you're town to two now: the big, combined honesty/fidelity commandment, and the one we haven't mentioned yet:

     THOU SHALT NOT KILL

     Murder. The Fifth Commandment. But, if you give it a little thought, you realize that religion has never really had a problem with murder. Not really. More people have been killed in the name of God than for any other reason.

     To cite a few examples, just think about Irish history, the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition, our own abortion-doctor killings and, yes, the World Trade Center to see how seriously religious people take Thou Shalt Not Kill. Apparently, to religious folks - epspecially the truly devout - murder is negotiable. It just depends on who's doing the killing and who's getting killed.

     And so, with all of this in mind, folks, I offer you my revised list of the Two Commandments:

     First:

     THOU SHALT ALWAYS BE HONEST AND FAITHFUL, ESPECIALLY TO THE PROVIDER OF THY NOOKIE

     And second:

     THOU SHALT TRY REAL HARD NOT TO KILL ANYONE, UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY PRAY TO A DIFFERENT INVISIBLE AVENGER THAN THE ONE YOU PRAY TO

     Two is all you need, folks. Moses could have carried them down the hill in his pocket. And if we had a list like that, I wouldn't mind that brilliant judge in Alabama displaying it prominenetly in his courthouse lobby. As long as he included one additional commandment:

     THOU SHALT KEEP THEY RELIGION TO THYSELF

     -George Carlin, from "When Will Jesus Bring the Pork Chops?"

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 3:49pm

195. JonB if you want to know about oil in Iraq check www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2005/01surface.htm

     Posted by dycel8r at 08/07/2005 @ 3:59pm

196. >What I continue to wonder is what the Democrats fear will happen if they behave on principle.

     How about

     1) the loss of large contributions from major defense contractors, oil companies, and their lobbyists 2) pork barrel projects in home districts, 3) the need to explain why a huge fraction of our tax money is going down a military rathole 4) the hostility of the major media and establishment think tanks largely controlled by entities in 1)

     Et cetera.

     Posted by john.halle at 08/07/2005 @ 4:06pm

197. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

     -Hermann Goring at the Nuremberg Trials

     It's no question which political party Goring would be a member of if he was an American citizen today.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 4:19pm

198. In fact, "member" wouldn't fully describe it, Goring would easily be Karl Rove's boss, if not Dick Cheney's.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 4:25pm

199. Hello. We're the ones who control your lives. We make the decisions that affect all of you. Isn't it interesting to know that those who run your lives would have the nerve to tell you about it in this manner? Suffer, you fools. We know everything you do, and we know where you go. What do you think the cameras are for? And the global-positioning satellites? And the Social Security numbers? You belong to us. And it can't be changed. Sign your petitions, walk your picket lines, bring your lawsuits, cast your votes, and write those stupid letters to whomever you please; you won't change a thing. Because we control your lives. And we have plans for you. Go back to sleep.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 4:30pm

200. Problems with alcohol in your family URMYGYRO?

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 4:36pm

201. If the democrats act on principle, they will succeed lik McGovern.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 4:39pm

202. The poor guy didn't even get rich.

     HOw do you be in Washington, and elected without getting rich?

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 4:40pm

203. Are the Democrats getting big contributions from the defense and petroleum industries? Are the Republicans allowing Democratic pork barrel projects into the budgets? If they don't vote to support wasted efforts in the military, then they don't have to explain wasted efforts in the military. The only thing that seems legit is that they are scared of being called names by the talking heads and the faceless bloggers. Behaving ethically is a pretty good shield against such nonsense, I think.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 4:41pm

204. Cosmologists are just now beginning to accept the possibility that the big bang was actually caused by a huge explosion in a meth lab.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 4:41pm

205. The Democrats are currently succeeding like McGovern so I don't see the point.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 4:42pm

206. He was wrong, wrong, wrong. But I admire his integrity.

     Some people on both sides have their nose in the trough.

     He didn't.

     I like the guy. I wouldn't mind having him live next door.

     I would vote for him for dogctcher, or city treasurer.

     Not much beyond that, though.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 4:42pm

207. There was a guy from Illinois. I forget his name. A US Senator. ??Stephenson maybe??

     He was so principled, he voted against federal funds to expand (I think it was O'hare, might have been Midway)

     He was replaced by Obama. Barak knows which side of the bread is buttered.

     He had no chance of beinbg reelected. None at all.

     Most Americans listen to WII FM. (Whats In It For Me)

     They want those who represent them to do the same.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 4:46pm

208. Jon B is trying to convince you he doesn't vote based on his interests.

     Riiiiiiiiiiiight

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 4:53pm

209. The defense industry is just a means of transferring wealth.

     Taxes, (which on a total dollars basis come from the wealthy)

     Are spent to buy bombs (and other stuff) which are made in factories. The people in those factories get paid to be there.

     They use the money they are paid to buy houses, cars, etc.

     It's the jobs thing.

     Added 200000 jobs last month.

     Politicians of either party would be happy to get a bomb making factory in their district. (They'd call it a "Defense Contractor") because that means jobs, jobs mean votes.

     "It's the economy, stupid".

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 4:55pm

210. Of course I vote on my interests.

     There is only one issue in american politics significant enough to get me to the polls.

     And I consider it to be in my interest to vote based on that issue. Because the destruction of this country will result if that issue is not resolved properly.

     It isn't Iraq.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 4:58pm

211. By the way, having reflected on it some, I conclude the destruction of the american empire will be caused by civil war.

     I hope I am wrong.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 4:59pm

212. Dear Political Activists:

     All your chanting, marching, voting, picketing, boycotting, and letter-writing will not change a thing; you will never right the wrongs of this world. The only thing your activity will accomplish is to make some of you feel better. Such activity makes powerless people feel useful, and provides them the illusion that they're making a difference. But it doesn't work. Nothing changes. The powerful keep the power. That's why they're called powerful. love, urmygyro

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 4:59pm

213. Ignore these four words

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 5:02pm

214. all patriarchal societies are either preparing for war, at war, or recovering from war.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 5:03pm

215. >Are the Democrats getting big contributions from the defense and petroleum industries? Are the Republicans allowing Democratic pork barrel projects into the budgets?

     You bet they are. Have a look at www.opensecrets.org. Not to the same degree as the Repugs-but they get plenty. As for pork-have a look next time a military base or a major defense contractor in your area is about to close and see who screams. DOD Pork even under a Repug administration is a bipartisan affair. (I remember mentioning this once when I had a chance to meet Charles Rangel and his look could freeze beer.)

     I agree that acting on principle has a lot to recommend it-not the least that you can look yourself in the mirror. And in this case I agree that it may very well be winning politics.

     Having said that, folks like us need to recognize the very real financial forces which prevent Dems from acting in their own best political, if not financial, interests.

     For some Dems, there are more important things than winning elections, alas.

     Posted by john.halle at 08/07/2005 @ 5:05pm

216. Since this is the day for quotes, here is one.

     This is a bit of verse by Rudyard Kipling, written on the occasion of Victoria's Diamond Jubilee. Thomas Babington was Poet Laureate, but Kipling was vastly more popular and skillful.

     Recessional

     God of our fathers, known of old--

     Lord of our far-flung battle line

     Beneath whose awful hand we hold

     Dominion over palm and pine--

     Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

     Lest we forget - lest we forget!

     The tumult and the shouting dies;

     The captains and the kings depart:

     Still stands Thine ancient sacrifice,

     An humble and a contrite heart.

     Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

     Lest we forget - lest we forget!

     Far-called, our navies melt away;

     On dune and headland sinks the fire:

     Lo, all our pomp of yesterday

     Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!

     Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,

     Lest we forget - lest we forget!

     If, drunk with sight of power, we loose

     Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe--

     Such boasting as the Gentiles use

     Or lesser breeds without the law--

     Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,

     Lest we forget - lest we forget!

     For heathen heart that puts her trust

     In reeking tube and iron shard--

     All valiant dust that builds on dust,

     And guarding, calls not Thee to guard--

     For frantic boast and foolish word,

     Thy mercy on Thy people, Lord!

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 5:08pm

217. The British did forget, however.

     Too bad for them.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 5:10pm

218. I have been meaning to look that bit of verse up. I came across it in High School (that was 30 years ago) and was impressed with it at the time.

     It isn't included in most anthologies of Kipling's work, and earlier attempts to locate it were unsuccessful. The internet is useful for that sort of thing!

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 5:18pm

219. The conceit that we control our destiny, and the fear that other men do, are equally without merit.

     It is true that our actions may have some effect.

     But as Shakespeare noted:

     "There is a power that shapes our ends, no matter how we roughly hew."

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 5:21pm

220. Well, since I'm not a republican, and therefore I have to work for a living; I am off to work.

     God bless all y'all.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 5:23pm

221. Bush calls the al Qaeda people cowards, and says, "They like to hide." Well, isn't that what the American Continental Army did during the American Revolution? Our beloved patriots? They hid. They hid behind trees. Then they came out, killed some British soldiers, and ran away. Just like al Qaeda. That's what you do when you're outnumbered and have less firepower than the enemy. It's called "trying to win". It's not cowardly.

     Bill Maher may have stretched the point a bit when he said that air force pilots who release their bombs from hundreds of miles away are cowards; flying combat jets doesn't attract many cowards. But it's not nearly as courageous an act as deliberately strapping a bomb to your chest and heading for the disco with no intention of dancing.

     I will say this. Getting out of the Vietnam war through Daddy's connections and then not living up to your end of the bargain is probably of form of cowardice.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 5:26pm

222. I know I've been wide-eyed about politicians and ethical choice, John Halle, deliberately so. (The beauty of the blog!). The real point to my starfilled dreams of a Democratic, or other non-Republican, party is that during those years that the Republicans were in the position of the current Democrats, they began making their case, staking their ground, drawing and toeing the line to say this is why I'm right and they're wrong. While opensecrets.org shows the massive amount of money in play, it also shows that the Dems ain't got crap compared to the Republicans. How much more would it hurt their overall bottom line if they reached past the sweaty hand of the slimebag lobbyist to shake the hand of a regular working stiff. I think there is a real sense that the Democrats aren't willing to work hard and fight. There are many exceptions of course from Waxman and his continuous stream of wonderful and frightening reports to the work of Conyers and his commissions. Efforts to bust up a system that is at an all-time or nearly all-time low level of support among the American public should not be that hard of a proposition for the Democrats. If not now, when will they ever have the oppotunity to reintroduce themselves to us as the party who has our interests in mind rather than those of the porky folk?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 5:28pm

223. the "porky folk" are people too. And they represent people, so the "pork" is helping someone, if not you.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 5:34pm

224. Why not join the army? Join up and die. How do you expect to keep America free if you won't die? I'm dead; I died in Vietnam. I'm dead, and all my old army buddies are dead. Can you say that? No. What's wrong with you?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 5:37pm

225. Those represented by the porky folk were not elected by us. If you are a stockholder, then good for you. I would prefer if my tax dollars were spent with America's interests in mind rather than those of K-Street.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 5:47pm

226. Colin Powell spent his entire adult life as a soldier, trying to devise the most efficient ways of killing foreigners for his country. Then he became a diplomat, trying to devise the most efficient ways of getting foreigners to cooperate with his country. Tough sell.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 5:49pm

227. How do you know for sure that the interests of "K-Street" aren't also the interests of Americans?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 5:51pm

228. When their interests are in sync with ours it will negate their purpose. Why throw money at something that already has our support? K-Street begins where our interests end.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 5:53pm

229. Whew! glad you folks are all safely occupied with this blog, thus keeping the world safe from any mischief you might get into. Reading most of you makes Howard Dean and Al Gore almost seem like rational people.

     Posted by love liberty at 08/07/2005 @ 6:15pm

230. Ah, the sweet words of Jesus channeled through an ardent follower. Is this how you spend His day?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 6:17pm

231. Sorry, LL. Stupid entry on my part. But really, if you think the blog is worthless and or in need of assistance, perhaps something more or less than an insult is in order.

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 6:20pm

232. Love Liberty blesses us all with the truth because he's speaking God's words, and like all true christian sheep, he feels the need to spread the word of god throughout the flock.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 6:29pm

233. Have you ever wondered why republicans are so interested in encouraging people to volunteer in their communities? It's because volunteers work for no pay. Republicans have been trying to get people to work for no pay for a long time.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 6:38pm

234. traditional american values: genocide, aggression, conformity, emotional repression, hypocricy, and the worship of comfort and consumer goods.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 6:41pm

235. conservatives say if you don't give the rich more money, they'll lose their incentive to invest. As for the poor, they tell us they've lost all incentive because we've given them too much money.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 7:01pm

236. With all this natural selection going on, why doesn't the human race get any smarter? Is this it? Why are there still so many stupid people? Apparently, being a real dumb jackoff has some survival value.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 7:05pm

237. Excerpts from Poor Urmygyro's Almanac?

     Posted by tjbehrens1 at 08/07/2005 @ 7:09pm

238. The New Testament is not new anymore; it's thousands of years old. It's time to start calling it The Less Old Testament.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 7:11pm

239. I'm not worried about guns in school. You know what I'm waiting for? Guns in church! That's gonna be a lot of fun.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 7:14pm

240. It's way beyond ironic that a place called the Holy Land is the location of the fiercest, most deeply felt hatred in the world.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 7:18pm

241. Scientists are easily the least responsible class in society. If you're one of those "green" assholes who run around worrying about the condition of the planet all the time, you might as well just go ahead and blame it all on the scientists. They're the ones who fouled the nest. Without them, none of the bad shit gets done. Self-important, asshole scientists, most of them working for the Pentagon or big business, creating harmful products we don't need. They don't care what they produce as long as they get to publish their papers.

     And the idealistic ones? The ones who won't have anything to do with the weapons makers and greed-heads? The ones involved in "pure research"? They lay the groundwork for the truly dangerous scientists who move in later and apply the knowledge commercially. Scientists have consistently assaulted adn violated your planet. That's why you have AIDS, that's why you have a hole in your ozone layer, that's why your atmosphere is overheating, that's why you have toxic and nuclear waste, and that's why everything has a thin coating of oil on it. And next, they're going to turn these irresponsible motherfuckers loose on human genetic engineering. That ought to be a real treat. Scientists. The only ones worth a fuck are theoretical physicists. At least they're nuts.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 7:37pm

242. Prayer

     Another selfish act which disguises itself as meant to help others when it's sole purpose is to set yourself at ease.

     Keep praying if you need it.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 8:54pm

243. Instead of school busing and prayer in schools, which are both controversial, why not a joint solution? Prayer in buses. Just drive these kids around all day and let them pray their fuckin' empty little heads off.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 9:00pm

244. You said "pray for peace"

     Like that's ever worked in the history of mankind.

     But keep praying. That'll get things done.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 9:01pm

245. Incidentally, Gloria Borger has an intelligent article in the Auugust 8th US News & World Report on p.28 about how Democrats should "lose smart" when it comes to the nomination of John Roberts.

     Of course, the progressives in The Nation will vehemently disagree, and that's why they're destined to gain no power in national politics.

     Read her article, learn from it.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 9:07pm

246. by the way, freiheit, I'm not liberal or conservative. I make my mind up on issue by issue basis. I often disagree with conservatives, but quite often disagree with liberals.

     Neither party really represents me, and I don't spend my time resenting that fact. I'm here on the Nation for entertainment value. I like seeing what people write here, it's fun.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 9:10pm

247. to put it better: most of my friends (I'm 26) are sports and video game junkies. That's how they spend a lot of their free time. I'm not into either of those, I'm a politics junkie and I love to read all sorts of literature, so the Nation is fun for me.

     And any self-righteous posters who claim they're on here for anything other than their own personal interests is a liar. We're not accomplishing anything substantive by being anonymous posters on a website responding to someone else's brief web diary entry and then arguing with each other. It's pure entertainment, period.

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 9:17pm

248. this is a virtual sports bar for politics.

     Too bad real sports bars are full of people who drink and watch boring shit on tv and try to "hook up" instead of drink and argue with eachother about politics.

     oh well

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 9:33pm

249. Does it anger you people when I tell the truth about the Demoocrats? Do you still cling to the illusion that the Democrats are the saviors from the evil Republicans?(the Republicans ARE evil!) Well, just like the many Democrats who voted for Bush's war and voted for all the budget appropriations supporting the war and the bloated military budget, remember it was the Democrats who brought us the Vietnam War. My point is : Let go of your cherished myths about the Democrats! On many issues, there is no difference between them and the Republicans. Issues like war, the military-industrial complex, corporate welfare,etc. The Democrats are not your saviour!

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 10:08pm

250. The reason I am so critical of the Democratic Party is they disappoint me so much. Right now, when the polls show support for the war is getting lower by the day, the Democratic Party should be advocating withdrawal from Iraq. Instead, the big shots(Dean, Hillary, Kerry, Biden,etc.) do not mention withdrawal. Instead, they complain there is NOT ENOUGH TROOPS! Or the war could be fought better. The Democrats need to be an OPPOSITION party. But alas, they are not. And so I see them as fading away, because progressives are leaving. The liberal soul of the party is gone, and now they want to be Republican-lite. We want a real opposition party.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 10:21pm

251. Freiheit: that pathetic line about "socialism" is standard McCarthyism. If the shoe fits, wear it. For your info, I think deeply about economic theory, and have concluded I am not a socialist. It is a lovely thought, but human nature would pervert any economic system where the govt. owned all assets. But your slur was standard when you cannot classify someone in mainstream politics. I'm disappointed in you, but not surprised.

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 10:28pm

252. I had a similar experience as John.Halle with a Democratic congressman in my state in the 1990's. I went to his speech in my town, Olympia WA,because the congressman, Mike Lowry of Washington State, always gave good speeches opposing war (in theory). After the passionate speech talking about how we must move our thinking beyond war, I approached him shaking hands. I said" I enjoyed your speech, Mr. Congressman, but how do we get any congressman to vote against a military project from their district? He looked shocked, said "nice to see you", and walked quickly away. The point is Democrats mostly support the military-industrial complex too. (Congressman Jim McDermott of Seattle has voted against all special budget money for this war, but he is unique, bless him. The rightwing echo chamber calls him "Baghdad Jim". I love him!)

     Posted by philbq at 08/07/2005 @ 11:00pm

253. PHILBQ:

     you wrote: "The liberal soul of the [democratic] party is gone."

     I ask: When it comes to war, since when has the Democratic party been led by it's liberal "soul"?

     Posted by urmygyro at 08/07/2005 @ 11:23pm

254. hmmmm

     What it seems to me is, the progressives are pretty despondent.

     That's how they sound, anyway.

     Kind of like being "trapped in a world he didn't create".

     Probably for that reason, too. The world doesn't and won't work the way they want.

     For most people, their god is their belly. "It's the economy, stupid."

     For most of the rest, their God views the progressive cause with (lets keep this nice) distate; and so do they.

     That leaves a small minority, altruistic enough to care about truth, justice, and the ?american? way...

     But lost as a love letter in a land fill.

     Not enough to start a revolution.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 11:39pm

255. Every year, I go to Mardi Gras.

     Every year there are a bunch of young artsy folks there with bumper stickers and other stuff with the slogan "Stop Bitching and Start a Revolution".

     I was curious about them, they are very "revolutionary" with lots of rebellious swagger.

     They are capitalists. They are selling their stuff to raise money, so they can spend it.

     Typical american kids.

     Posted by jonb at 08/07/2005 @ 11:42pm

256. PHILBQ, you did not answer my question. Could it be that there were Democrats who genuinely supported the war and did nnot do so because AIPAC told them to? This is a possibility. . . Also, where are the numbers about AIPAC contributions and the Democrats who supported the war? Also, where are the websites I asked about?

     Posted by hhemwm at 08/08/2005 @ 5:46pm