The Beat

A Constitution to "Chain the Dogs of War"

posted by John Nichols on 09/17/2007 @ 08:35am

Two-hundred and twenty years ago this week, the patriots who had stuck through the long process of drafting a Constitution for the new United States finally approved the document. The primary purpose of their creation was, in the language of their time, to "chain the dogs of war."

The American colonies has suffered the cruel fates of wars plotted and pursued by the royal families of distant Europe, and they set about to assure that the nation they had freed from the grip of British imperialism would not, itself, be subjected to the imperial whims of presidents who might someday imagine themselves to be kings.

"The executive should be able to repel and not to commence war," explained Roger Sherman, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from Connecticut, who moved to make clear the intent of the founders that nothing in their exposition of the powers of the executive branch should be conceived as authorizing the president to "make war." An executive could assume the mantle of commander-in-chief only when it was necessary to defend the country; never to wage kingly wars of whim.

Sherman's resolution was approved overwhelmingly by the Philadelphia convention that finished its work September 17, 1787.

George Mason, the Virginia delegate who was the strongest advocate for restraint on the executive, summed up the sentiments of the delegates when he said: "I am for clogging rather than facilitating war."

So was the Constitution defined. Indeed, in arguing for its ratification, Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson explained, "This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important part in declaring war is vested in the legislature at large."

The procedures are clearly outlined. Wars must be declared by the houses of Congress. And the power to continue any war is rested entirely in the funding authority that is given Congress. The president does not enjoy the privilege of declaring or maintaining a war. He is merely a manager of military affairs in a time of conflict; and even in that he is required to defer on matters of consequence to the Congress.

This, we know, to be the law of the land.

Yet, as we mark the 220th anniversary of the Constitution, more than 160,000 young Americans are mired in the quagmire of an undeclared war in Iraq. More than 3,700 of them have died already, and the toll expands on a daily basis – as does the rate at which innocent Iraqis are killed, maimed and rendered homeless. More than $200 million is extracted from the federal treasury each day to pay for this war, despite the fact that it is, by any Constitutional standard, entirely illegitimate.

The founders would not question for a moment that the Congress has the authority to use the power of the purse to end this war. Indeed, they would argue today as they did in their time, that a failure to do so would imperil the Republic.

But the founders would be even more worried about the precedent set by the current president's seizure of ungranted authority for warmaking and so much else, and they would remind us, as George Mason did, that with regard to the Constitution: "No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued."

The voters dealt with last fall with the Republican Congress that had collaborated with Bush to thwart the rule of law. The unfortunate reality of the moment is that a Democratic Congress that was elected to restore a measure of balance to the federal stage has responded to necessity with caution. But that does not change the eternal reality of the Republic, which is that this "opposition" Congress has a simple, basic, yet essential Constitutional duty. Members of the House and Senate must impeach and try a president who is assaulting the most basic precepts of the American experiment. Anything less is a mockery of the document they swear an oath to defend – and an invitation to this and future presidents to further unchain the dogs of war that the founders struggled so mightily to contain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure for Royalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use of the 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democratic leaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by the founders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

Comments (116)

  1. Nichols- Now, the new Congress has a simple, basic, yet essential Constitutional duty. Its members must impeach the president.

    Right on of course, but these are strange times. The nation has devolved --and the downward spiral has quickened dramatically under Dick and Dubya-- into a fattened and ethically/morally weak empire. You know it, I know it and the American people know it --or are at least they're dimly aware of a rotten stench wafting out of Washington.

    We are in the hail mary stage of the game in regards to saving what's salvageable in an American democracy that has been increasingly sickly over the last several decades.

    We should all be hoping --and praying if you're so inclined-- that a tsunami of sensibility hits our mainland soon. Very soon.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2007 @ 6:35pm

  2. NICHOLS: ....the power to continue any war is rested entirely in the funding authority that is given Congress.

    Just so that we are clear......The just-elected Dem Congress that didn't have the courage to use its de-funding authority now has the courage to mount an impeachment with even less, shall we say, authority...since where is the "beef" (smoking or otherwise)?

    Gotta Hit & Run....

    Posted by Happy at 09/16/2007 @ 6:40pm

  3. "Gotta Hit & Run...."

    And please don't come back Sad Sack.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2007 @ 7:12pm

  4. Mr Nichols, I'm curious as to which of you, you or HSUBFOOLS, will be the last one to turn out the light at the Impeachment Party.

    Didn't the fact that John Conyers NOT ONLY told Cindy Sheehan no on impeachment a month or so back...but HAD HER ARRESTED...tell you something?

    or your hero Russ Feingold shooting it down on Kos? Or Gore coming out against it? Or Howard Dean on Air America?

    What does it take to make you see, it isn't going to happen???

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2007 @ 7:17pm

  5. when teddy rooseveldt wanted to send the great white fleet around the world on a "check this out" tour, he was having some issues with congress, abd the budget had only enough money to send them halfway around the world. so he sent them out and told congress if they wanted them back they should appropriate the fundage...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 7:21pm

  6. Just to clarify Maskot, Nichols isn't making any predictions here. He's simply stating the obvious --that impeachment is called for now as never before.

    Just because we are living in a land that's rich in ignorance, confusion and mass media propaganda doesn't make the sky green.

    Interpretation for Maskot: Impeachment is very unlikely at this point, but that doesn't mean that it is any less necessary or speaking of it any less imperative.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2007 @ 7:38pm

  7. Interpretation for Maskot: Impeachment is very unlikely at this point, but that doesn't mean that it is any less necessary or speaking of it any less imperative. ---Posted by B_KOOL_66 09/16/2007 @ 7:38pm

    So it's "impeartive" that we keep TALKING about something that isn't going to happen?

    Why? Is talking about winning the Power Ball lottery "imperative"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2007 @ 7:54pm

  8. Hey Little Johnny Nichols the Whore---What do we do with illicit pip squeak media whores like yourself?---hey I got an idea---but my better side just won't let me do it.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/16/2007 @ 8:04pm

  9. Off to the ignore zone with ye, Mosse.

    Posted by lewwelge at 09/16/2007 @ 8:11pm

  10. Maskot-"Why? Is talking about winning the Power Ball lottery "imperative"?"

    Poor analogy Maskot. The Power Ball odds are on the order of 1:50,000,000 and they don't respond to arguments.

    Impeachment may be unlikely, but the odds against are probably something on the order of 1:100 against. The odds are zero if no one has the cojones to take up the cause, or speak to the American people with clarity and conviction.

    Unfortunately, those qualities are increasingly rare in America today.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2007 @ 8:23pm

  11. Posted by MASK 09/16/2007 @ 7:54pm

    If people only attempted to gain political support for those goals that seem to have a high probability of short-term success, then we would still be living in caves. Some past low-probability successes (obviously not all political): man-on-the-moon, '69 Mets, Fisher-Spassky, desktop computers (and the internet that Al Gore did indeed help bring about), the Republican Party takeover of the South, desegregation (at least state-sanctioned), the abolition of slavery, Social Security, and the list goes on. Clearly, the odds of successfully ending this occupation and impeaching the Bush crime family are somewhat short of slim. However, we are not being true to our great American heritage if we throw in the towel just because the fight will be difficult. The politicians will not lead, and we should not follow them

    Posted by human power at 09/16/2007 @ 8:27pm

  12. Hey Little Johnny Nichols the Whore---What do we do with illicit pip squeak media whores like yourself?---hey I got an idea---but my better side just won't let me do it.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE

    Fascinating post by a "born again Christian".

    So Len, tell us about your affections for young boys and/or your yen for illicit gay sex in public rest rooms.

    Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2007 @ 8:30pm

  13. Kucinich and over twenty others have started the ball rolling with a "house resolution" (HR) the number of which I've forgotten. 333?

    Anyway, co-sponsors of Kucinich's motion/measure to hopefully raise the total from the current approximate 5% of the 435 members of the House of Representatives to a more respectable number would be nice to see. Calling our albeit mostly "bought" reps to advocate for impeachment would be better than lamentation and gnashing of teeth at this site, methinks.

    Better to light one candle than to curse the darkness, eh?

    Posted by lewwelge at 09/16/2007 @ 8:33pm

  14. Fascinating post by a "born again Christian".

    So Len, tell us about your affections for young boys and/or your yen for illicit gay sex in public rest rooms.

    Because I am born again I could not say what I was tempted to say. I don't like Little Johnny's political views. I hope he has already accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior but if he hasn't I hope that he will---that does not mean that I will change my opinion of his writing and/or his politics.

    As to the yen for young boys and illicit gay sex statement--seems like something that you are more familiar with--so I will take your word for it and pray for those like yourself who seem to be so wraped up in such filth.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/16/2007 @ 8:51pm

  15. Posted by ZERO 09/16/2007 @ 8:49pm | ignore this person

    i noticed that.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 8:51pm

  16. of course israel and syria are still technically at war...guess its just become a long sitzkrieg, but technically either could expect violence from the other at any moment.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 9:10pm

  17. Posted by LEN MOSSE 09/16/2007 @ 8:51pm

    so he's a whore because he sells himself out to his own convictions (ideology?) over YOUR estimation of the country's best interest?

    thats an interesting definition that could be leveled by anyone against anyone else who expresses opinions on such topics.

    i could say you are a whore who sells yourself out to your own conservative convictions to the detrient of your country too, since i don't agree with you.

    at least you are not charging him with treason.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 9:16pm

  18. reminds me of an almost coherent obversion of reality and definition i read in the local editorial letters...

    a typically ideologically straightjacketed conservative, at the hight of triumphant conservative obnoxiousness, claimed that liberals were "outside the mainstream" because they did not "think outside the box"...

    what? those who think unconventionally are the norm while those who don't are conventional?

    perhaps "the box" meant something more like "the box of rational thought" or "box of truth"...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 9:28pm

  19. Posted by B_KOOL_66 09/16/2007 @ 8:23pm

    Okay, so it's "imperative" that we talk about....the Tampa Bay Bucs winning the Super Bowl?

    or any analogy you want. What the HELL is so "imperative" about TALKING about something that has the same odds Dennis Kucinich winning the Democratic nomination?

    Pelosi said no...Conyers said no (and arrested Sheehan and friends)...Reid said no...Russ Feingold (Mr."Censure" and John Nichols' hero) said no on Daily Kos....Rahm Emmanuel...George Miller...Barack Obama....Howard Dean....Al Gore.

    And yet we (as in Mr Nichols) must go on and on and on about "What Congress SHOULD be doing!!!"....great. To what end?

    So that you get madder and madder? That somehow TALKING about it on the blogs will make Congress do it? So that when it finally becomes impossible due to time constraints of the upcoming election, we can all sit around and say "Well, we sure TALKED about it enough...so we're good people!"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2007 @ 9:35pm

  20. occupied most of Palestine after they were awarded a small chunk of Palestine by the US and Britain, with no concern.

    Posted by ZERO 09/16/2007 @ 8:56pm | ignore this person

    this is nonsense in more ways than one. Jordan too is Palestine. in fact part of Lebanon is Palestine.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/16/2007 @ 9:36pm

  21. Posted by LEN MOSSE 09/16/2007 @ 8:51pm

    Simple question, LEN.

    Would Jesus call people "whore" for their political views?

    (Why do I expect your answer to be "yes"?)

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2007 @ 9:36pm

  22. It must suck to be Zero

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/16/2007 @ 9:37pm

  23. i think isreal wants to hit iran before bush is out of the white house. they are at war with iran also, and maybe this raid on syria was a dry run to see how everyone reacts.

    well, the great middle east sitzkrieg continues.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 9:38pm

  24. punctuated by predictably unpredictable spurts of violence...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 9:46pm

  25. And please don't come back Sad Sack.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 09/16/2007 @ 7:12pm

    I rarely call folks STUPID on this site! In fact, I don't recall doing so AT ALL! But you are STUPID.....you can make me not "come back" with a simple mouse click....need me to explain more, MR. BIK STUPID 666?

    Posted by Happy at 09/16/2007 @ 9:50pm

  26. Posted by MASK 09/16/2007 @ 9:35pm

    I suppose if we are just getting mad talking about it, then we are wasting our energies. Don't you suppose we can talk about what would be the right, courageous, and proper thing for our representatives in Congress to do without being angry over their disappointing performance? Arguing that something is unlikely to happen is not much of an argument, even if you are right.

    Maybe I am just not smart enough to understand why Americans aren't bothered by the loss of our Constitution (and many hundreds of thousands of lives).

    Posted by human power at 09/16/2007 @ 9:52pm

  27. Posted by MASK 09/16/2007 @ 9:36pm

    jesus hated the whores...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 9:52pm

  28. LEN MOSSE:

    Last I checked with Christian dogma, the thought is as bad as the deed. So whether you utter the sin or not, or perpetrate the sin or not, is irrelevant. In the eyes of the Lord you are as guilty as if you had done that which must not be named...

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2007 @ 9:55pm

  29. jesus hates whores, gays, liberals and little johnny nichols the whore...

    damned whores! always having sex with strangers for money! damned nichols! prolifically writing and blogging whorishly to his own conscience!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2007 @ 9:58pm

  30. .By the way, did you all notice that Israel just committed an overt, military act of war against Syria, and the US is complacent?

    Posted by ZERO 09/16/2007 @ 8:49pm

    Ordinarily, such an act SHOULD have been major, major news.....this isn't the IDF launching a raid into Gaza, the West Bank or even Lebanon...that said, what I find the most amazing is....

    The lack of any serious response by Syria so far! Could this be because Syria considers this raid to be part of Israel's justified payback for Syria's complicity to last summer's war started by Hezbollah? Could it be because of illicit weapons or nuclear goodies meant for Israel's destruction? Will we know more in the days/weeks ahead?

    There is no chance of Syria taking on Israel....if it does, ME will blow and likely take Syria and possibly Iran down a few notches.

    Posted by Happy at 09/16/2007 @ 10:20pm

  31. nd please don't come back Sad Sack.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 09/16/2007 @ 7:12pm

    I rarely call folks STUPID on this site! In fact, I don't recall doing so AT ALL! But you are STUPID.....you can make me not "come back" with a simple mouse click....need me to explain more, MR. BIK STUPID 666?

    Posted by HAPPY 09/16/2007 @ 9:50pm |

    BKOOL, ask him when he is going to Iraq. It irritates his delicate happycoward persona. If enough people keep asking an honest question, maybe he will once and for all answer it or go away.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 09/16/2007 @ 8:04pm

    For good inside info on whores, who better to go to then the republicans? Same with illicit gay sex and pederasty. At least the latest scandal involved an adult female.

    And you are going to come here and make moral judgments about an author whose work you have to intentionally seek out?

    Bad Christian!! No wafer for you! You must find another way to express your flesh eating desires.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2007 @ 10:34pm

  32. There is no chance of Syria taking on Israel....if it does, ME will blow and likely take Syria and possibly Iran down a few notches.

    Posted by HAPPY 09/16/2007 @ 10:20pm

    not possible Happycoward, George W. Bush has brought peace and stability to the ME. Countries like Syria have seen the error of their ways and given in to democratic principles. Democracy and the end to religious control of government bodies has swept through the entire region after the discovery of tens of thousands of litres of biological agents in Iraq.

    (Noah- riiiigghhhtt)

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2007 @ 10:38pm

  33. Isn't this cool, google "Senator Vitter sex with prostitute"

    Then "craig bathroom sex"

    Then "foley pederast'

    then "haggard gay sex" (just love how those words flow!)

    Then there is our boy Warren Jeffs, currently on trial for telling a 16 year old girl to give herself " Mind, body and spirit" to her "husband".

    Preach to me some more Len Mosse.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2007 @ 10:46pm

  34. I guess in Colo City, 16 IS the new 21.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/16/2007 @ 10:47pm

  35. Pretty says it all!

    Posted by MASK 09/16/2007 @ 09:26am (From a now, if not strangely but nonetheless disapeared, thread. But still on topic, after a fashion). Ahem;

    Actually it does. Since it conforms to my expectation of what you would do. The sources, people cited, and the reports they created exist. And are availible on the web. But, I knew you would not respond directly. And unlike the euphimistically named "propaganda" you spew, I provided references to their own words and deeds. Indeed, if one is familiar with the dialouge between God and Satan. Wherein the latter, refusing to give his at that time (and now, subsequently, twisted ...) divine, gifts to what he considered to be a lesser creation. Thereby leaving them ignorant of the exposed, in said context, truth ... was the reason found for his being cast into the pit.

    Since at no point, can you or anyone else ... find anything other than a video that uses base unsubtstantiated lies in "refutation" of the earlier posts of yours truly, you are exposed as one who shares the same conscious, character, and nature, as that other ... pit dweller.

    Posted by V at 09/17/2007 @ 12:04am

  36. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 09/16/2007 @ 9:52pm | ignore this person

    No. Jesus loves whores, his best friend was a whore. He does hate Len Mosse though ...

    Posted by V at 09/17/2007 @ 12:08am

  37. What does it take to make you see, it isn't going to happen???

    Posted by MASK 09/16/2007 @ 7:17pm

    what a shame.

    1788

    "Some gentlemen say, don't be in a hurry..., don't take a leap in the dark. I say... gather the fruit when it is ripe."

    A Federalist farmer, speaking in support of the Constitution at the Massachusetts ratifying convention.

    he could very well have used a similar metaphor for bush/cheney. to paraphrase:

    1788

    Some gentlemen say, don't be in a hurry..., don't take a leap in the dark. I say... flush the toilet when it reeks to high heaven.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 01:29am

  38. jonnhy whore, etc.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 09/16/2007 @ 8:51pm

    Psalm 15

    A psalm of David.

    1 LORD, who may dwell in your sanctuary?

    Who may live on your holy hill?

    2 He whose walk is blameless

    and who does what is righteous , who speaks the truth from his heart

    3 and has no slander on his tongue,

    who does his neighbor no wrong

    and casts no slur on his fellowman,

    4 who despises a vile man

    but honors those who fear the LORD,

    who keeps his oath even when it hurts,

    5 who lends his money without usury

    and does not accept a bribe against the innocent.

    He who does these things

    will never be shaken.

    hey, can i borrow 10 bucks?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 01:40am

  39. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 01:29am

    Will someone turn the water supply back on?

    Posted by human power at 09/17/2007 @ 01:42am

  40. There is no chance of Syria taking on Israel....if it does, ME will blow and likely take Syria and possibly Iran down a few notches.

    Posted by HAPPY 09/16/2007 @ 10:20pm

    happy, israel has plenty'o'nukes. nobody's gonna go THERE.

    well, israel didn't fare too well against hezbollah.

    and american troops in iraq would be slaughtered by the southern shiias if an attack by israel occurred against iran.

    god help us.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 01:53am

  41. 1786

    We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our Constitution [of the Confederation]. Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt and carry into execution measures best calculated for their own good, without the intervention of a coercive power.

    George Washington

    1787

    I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

    Thomas Jefferson, U.S. Minister to France, in a letter to James Madison, as France was nearing the outbreak of revolution.

    1788

    We may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it.

    James Madison, writing as Publius, in Federalist Number 39.

    1788

    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficult difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

    James Madison, writing for the Constitution as Publius, in Federalist No. 51.

    1788

    In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it. Several of the State constitutions have follo wed the example....

    Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers?

    Could the Supreme Court have been relied upon as answering this description?.... The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons....

    The Federalist No. 65 (Hamilton). On impeachment

    1788

    [T]he election of the President is... not perfect, [but] it is at least excellent.... The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require ither talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

    The Federalist No. 68 (Hamilton). On electing the president.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 02:19am

  42. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 01:53am | ignore this person

    Have you seen this?

    Cheney, Lieberman and Iran War Conspiracy [tinyurl.com]

    Or this?

    Cheney urging strikes on Iran [tinyurl.com]

    Eventually, if there is something that resembles history that in fact survives the present administration, it will be the lack of an impeachment process, that defines our republic and its people.

    God help us indeed ...

    Posted by V at 09/17/2007 @ 02:27am

  43. [T]he election of the President is... not perfect, [but] it is at least excellent.... The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require ither talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.

    The Federalist No. 68 (Hamilton). On electing the president.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 02:19am | ignore this person

    Using celluloid as a metaphor Bush is "no mercy" Reban, to "when they have been crushed enough" Rudy G's, Fayed Rautha Harkonenn, from Frank Herbert's Dune.

    Posted by V at 09/17/2007 @ 02:59am

  44. Yeah, cHeney once again 'knows' where OBL/AQ really are and that's in Iran, sure. The need to impeach this greedy madman IS imperative. Then the greedy madman hsuB.

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/17/2007 @ 03:44am

  45. 3 and has no slander on his tongue,

    who does his neighbor no wrong

    and casts no slur on his fellowman,

    Is this from the same Bible that so many of the cons preach from incessantly? Nahh, can't be. Must be something different,cuz I know the American Taliban would never break Gods rules, or pick and choose which rules to follow.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2007 @ 07:41am

  46. "My message to the Iranian people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential." -- george w bush

    "My message to the American people is, you can do better than this current government," he said. "You don't have to be isolated. You don't have to be in a position where you can't realize your full economic potential." -- frost y zoom

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 08:13am

  47. Posted by CRABWALK 09/17/2007 @ 07:41am

    ¿cherry-picking divinity?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 08:16am

  48. Slaughtered!? Our troops FZ? No way! Our soldiers are too well-trained and equipped.

    I had not heard of Israel's attack on Syria, though. Maybe I'm still celebrating the fact Rese's ominous prediction of a 9/14 "false flag terrorist" attack in D.C. didn't occur.

    Posted by lewwelge at 09/17/2007 @ 08:29am

  49. and has no slander on his tongue

    Posted by CRABWALK 09/17/2007 @ 07:41am

    Noticed that thread about young Allen and the war for oil disappeared pretty quick. Was it because Allen said Dick and George never breathed a word about oil in his hearing? Sort of gets them off the hook doesn't it? Wise decision anyway.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/17/2007 @ 08:40am

  50. I suppose if we are just getting mad talking about it, then we are wasting our energies. ----Posted by HUMAN POWER 09/16/2007 @ 9:52pm

    And HUMAN...what ELSE is talking about impeachment DOING?

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 08:44am

  51. Posted by V 09/17/2007 @ 12:04am

    Sorry V...of course it was a trick.

    You claim you're not a LaRouche Youth Movementer or even "follower of LaRouche"....yet you get angry and defensive about a video that compares them to the Hitler Youth.

    Why?...unless you ARE a LaRouche follower.

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 08:46am

  52. The Authoritarian Chain of Command

    Conservatives babble endlessly about law and order, but they don't believe in either one unless you mean law and order designed, imposed and enforced by them. Conservatives devise laws to make some crimes legal, like campaign contributions, and others that help the rich rob the under-classes, but they don't like laws that support the common good. They see the concept of common good as sissy socialism and at odds with their Wild West myth of the rugged individualist, the good old days when men were men and took what they wanted.

    That Wild West myth appeals to bullies, wimps, wannabe gunslingers, and republicans. It you aren't the fastest draw in town, be his friend. That's how republicans choose their leaders too, they look for the biggest bully available, and adore him.

    Have you spent your life as a bully, or a victim of bullies? Have you ever noticed that bosses and landlords have more rights than you?

    Our economic system and government was devised by bullies for bullies. Bullies like Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, Dick Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Rupert Murdoch; there's an endless supply. And these guys go right to the top, fast.

    What's the secret of their success? What do they all have in common?

    For one thing, they never champion the underdogs, that isn't the fast track to success anywhere. If you wanna be a top dog, you gotta think, talk and act like a top dog, or the top dogs won't notice you and call you to heel. Once you've groveled at their feet though, it's clear sailing, as long as you continue to clean their toilets.

    That's the secret of a sociopath's success, and pretty much how our society is.

    .

    Posted by rabblerowzer at 09/17/2007 @ 09:02am

  53. Articulately and poetically accurate to a great extent, if nevertheless too cynical for my taste Rabblerowzer. But then, on second thought, thank you, because we're aware of the bully-boys hegemony and your writing may add to our number.

    So ironic, isn't it, that the Sopranos celebrates a family's attempts to reconcile bullying with civility.

    Posted by lewwelge at 09/17/2007 @ 09:15am

  54. Posted by LRJONES4 09/17/2007 @ 08:40am

    what do you mean?

    greenspan blog found here [thenation.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 09:20am

  55. Conservatives devise laws to make some crimes legal, like campaign contributions.....----Posted by RABBLEROWZER 09/17/2007 @ 09:02am

    RABBLE, learn some history, huh? The Federal Election Campaign Act was passed by a DEMOCRATIC Congress over the veto of Gerald Ford. "Buckley v Valeo" was decided by a moderate-to-liberal US Supreme Court. And both of those were the law of the land until "McCain-Feingold" in 2002.

    Now, you obviously would call McCain a "conservative", but you CAN'T call Feingold one. And, McCain-Feingold was opposed by most other conservatives, but got passed anyway.

    So..."conservatives" had virtually NOTHING to do with our present campaign financing system or the one operated under since 1976.

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 09:24am

  56. Posted by LEWWELGE 09/17/2007 @ 09:15am

    And seriously, is there a BIGGER kiss-ass on this board than LEW?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 09:26am

  57. So..."conservatives" had virtually NOTHING to do with our present campaign financing system or the one operated under since 1976.

    Posted by MASK 09/17/2007 @ 09:24am

    IT'S THE JEWS. THEY'RE JEWISH AND DO JEWISH THINGS.

    Posted by JONES 09/17/2007 @ 08:39am | ignore this person

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 09:33am

  58. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 09:33am

    Yeah, well obviously!...heheh

    BTW, got a link for you, when we were discussing "greatest Canadians"---found this at this alternative history wiki [althistory.wikia.com].

    I'd never heard of the guy before, but apparently he ...saved the world!

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 10:01am

  59. lester b. pearson was a great leader ('cept for taking on u.s. nukes) with an incredible list of accomplishments, all in a minority government! [en.wikipedia.org]

    if some of our neo-con friends read his bio, they'll want to bring him back from the dead so they can kill him.

    toronto's airport is named after the dude.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 10:39am

  60. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 10:39am

    Here's another guy who needs SOME kind of recognition...Stanislav Petrov [en.wikipedia.org]!

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 10:48am

  61. Posted by MASK 09/17/2007 @ 10:48am

    mom always told me not to play with matches!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 10:56am

  62. LARRY CRAIG: THE SHAME-RIDDEN FACE OF THE SELF-HATING REPUBLI-PHONIES

    Posted by CRABWALK 09/16/2007 @ 10:46pm

    As usual, CRAB hits the bull's eye!

    But wait! There's more:

    When a man in a crewcut with a tie says, "I am a staunch conservative Republican guided by the moral percepts of Christ Jesus and proud husband and father within an intact family guided by an unerring moral compass" ...

    ... our minds should tranlate it into the following ...

    ... "I burn for a throbbing hot dick in my ass. Meet me, however you are, at the airport bathroom. I'll be in the third stall from the door, tapping my right foot to the tempo of my hot desire. Don't let me down, stranger".

    Posted by John_Shaft at 09/17/2007 @ 1:06pm

  63. So apparently our troops are not only fighting Sunni on Sunni, Shia, militias, foriegn regional insurgents, Iraqi gov partnering with Iran, 2-5% of the time- AQiI, but also merc's that are our ex-troops...:

    Blackwater License Being Revoked in Iraq

    BASSEM MROUE | September 17, 2007 10:55 AM EST

    Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul-Karim Khalaf said eight civilians were killed and 13 were wounded when contractors believed to be working for Blackwater USA opened fire in a predominantly Sunni neighborhood of western Baghdad.

    "We have canceled the license of Blackwater and prevented them from working all over Iraqi territory. We will also refer those involved to Iraqi judicial authorities," Khalaf said.

    ...

    Al-Maliki late Sunday condemned the shooting by a "foreign security company" and called it a "crime."

    State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the United States had not been notified of any Iraqi government decision to revoke Blackwater's license and declined to speculate as to how that might affect State Department activities if it happened.

    ...

    Many of the contractors have been accused of indiscriminately firing at American and Iraqi troops, and of shooting to death an unknown number of Iraqi citizens who got too close to their heavily armed convoys, but none has faced charges or prosecution. (Yeah this makes absolutely no sense--- except of course, from a corporate war-profiteering sort of way...)

    ...

    The question of whether they could face prosecution is legally murky. Unlike soldiers, the contractors are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Under a special provision secured by American-occupying forces, they are exempt from prosecution by Iraqis for crimes committed there. (Oh yeah that makes sense that IRAQIS would proactively exempt foriegners for murdering IRAQIS!?!?!)

    ...

    Associated Press writers Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad and Matthew Lee in Washington contributed to this report.

    http://tinyurl.com/275xgw

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/17/2007 @ 1:30pm

  64. http://tinyurl.com/275xgw

    Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/17/2007 @ 1:30pm

    thanks for the link.

    aguas negras ("black waters) means SEWAGE in spanish

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 1:37pm

  65. I thought it was "aguas residuales"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 1:43pm

  66. Posted by MASK 09/17/2007 @ 1:43pm

    that term is more PC, a la "toilet tissue"

    it may be mexican slang.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 1:48pm

  67. from qwiki ¡en español!

    Aguas negras

    (Redirigido desde Aguas servidas)

    El término agua negra, más comúnmente utilizado en plural, aguas negras, define un tipo de agua que está contaminado con sustancias fecales y orina, procedentes de vertidos orgánicos humanos o animales. Su importancia es tal que requiere sistemas de canalización, tratamiento y desalojo. Su tratamiento nulo o indebido genera graves problemas de contaminación.

    A las aguas negras también se les llama aguas servidas, aguas residuales, aguas fecales, o aguas cloacales.

    "the term "black water" or the more commonly used "black waters" is used to define waste water that has been polluted with human and animal fecal matter and urine. entire systems of drainage, treatment and removal are required due to the dangers posed to the environment by insufficient treatment.

    "black waters" are also called "served waters, residual waters, fecal waters or cloacal water"

    yep, pretty much sums up the folks from Moyock

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 1:59pm

  68. Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/17/2007 @ 3:20pm

    What has this got to do with the price of shit in Cheyenne?

    Posted by skeletonman at 09/17/2007 @ 3:23pm

  69. Posted by SKELETONMAN 09/17/2007 @ 3:23pm

    He just sort of flails around a lot, SKELE.

    RIO won't get to be REAL fun for about 15 more months, when "Hillary Rotten, Satan's fave daughter" becomes Prez.

    THEN, you'll need a mop to soak up the frothing....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 4:02pm

  70. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/17/2007 @ 4:01pm

    Yes, some of those deserved impeachment hearings. How many have dragged out as long as OIF, a "cakewalk" and still have US troops dying in country?

    It's called not learning from history. There are right ways to do things, and the neo-con way of doing things.

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2007 @ 4:10pm

  71. If you are so irate Nichols, you and these anti-war bloggers should continue attempting to persuade or elect representatives who will reflect your view. Then you can defund this or any other war you disagree with.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/17/2007 @ 4:01pm

    lvlib,

    please (re)read this post

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/14/2007 @ 7:06pm [tinyurl.com]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 4:11pm

  72. Then you can defund this or any other war you disagree with.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/17/2007 @ 4:01pm | ignore this person

    most of the country disagrees with this war.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 09/17/2007 @ 4:22pm

  73. Hey Little Johnny Nichols the Whore---What do we do with illicit pip squeak media whores like yourself?---hey I got an idea---but my better side just won't let me do it.

    Posted by LEN MOSSE 09/16/2007 @ 8:04pm

    Big mouth bimbo. You think you have a better side?

    BWAH HA HA HA HA - your momma LIED to you, bub.

    Posted by Dr Decibels at 09/17/2007 @ 4:38pm

  74. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/17/2007 @ 5:07pm

    regardless of the actual necessity.

    grrr, kill, kill, grrr

    Posted by crabwalk at 09/17/2007 @ 5:32pm

  75. Yeah, I was wondering how many 'thousands' reported by paper/on-line media there were. Never really thought it would be 100,000; 50-75K maybe. Although it should have been a few million:

    September 15: 100,000 march for impeachment, against the war

    Keep the pressure on! Write a letter to Congress demanding impeachment!

    Iraq war veterans carry impeachment signs at Sept. 15

    On Saturday, nearly 100,000 people from all walks of life, young and old, of all nationalities and creeds, marched together, united by a single purpose, determined to end the war. The impeachment movement was a huge part of this demonstration and the call for impeachment resounded from the White House to the Capitol. People took buses, trains, vans, and planes from all over the country to make it to Washington DC for the March, and it was reflected in the massive turnout.

    The protest included one of the anti-war movement's largest collective acts of civil disobedience. Around 5,000 people laid down in mass as part of a dramatic die-in at the foot of the Capitol steps to symbolize all those lives that have been lost in this destructive war. Another two hundred were arrested when they tried to take an anti-war message to the Congress and were stopped by riot police.

    As those that were in attendance on Saturday know: the message of impeachment was everywhere. There were impeachment banners, signs, t-shirts, buttons everywhere you looked.

    In his speech at the rally at the White House, Ramsey Clark called for a three-month push for Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment. He called on all impeachment supporters to rededicate themselves to the cause. Congressional representatives don't have the right to take impeachment off the table. The Constitution -- of, by and for the people -- puts impeachment on the table out of legal necessity. Now it is the time for the people to exercise that right.

    Following Ramsey Clark's call, ImpeachBush.org is initiating the fall campaign to flood Congress with the demand for Impeachment.  After Saturday's success, we do not want to wait or waste even a day. Impeachment supporters in every state are organizing to target their local representatives in their home towns and in Washington. 

    You can take an immediate step now. Congress has returned from vacationing while more and more soldiers and Iraqis have died in this criminal war. Now they are planning to capitulate once again and fund this war with no end in sight. Tell them vote No on war funding, vote Yes on impeachment. ImpeachBush.org has set up an easy-to-use mechanism for impeachment supporters to write a letter to their Congressional representatives and instruct them in no uncertain terms to follow their constitutional obligations. Now is the time to introduce articles of impeachment.

    Send a message to your representative, and by doing so, send a message to Bush and all the presidents to come. A war of aggression is the supreme violation of international law, and war crimes will not go unpunished.

    To send your letter, click on this link.

    http://tinyurl.com/35bhfb

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/17/2007 @ 6:26pm

  76. Posted by CRABWALK 09/17/2007 @ 5:32pm

    very eloquently put, crabwalker

    thanks so much for saving my having to write:

    grrr, kill, kill, grrr

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 6:50pm

  77. (Noah- riiiigghhhtt)

    Posted by CRABWALK 09/16/2007 @ 10:38pm

    "Who is this really?"

    Posted by Malcontent at 09/17/2007 @ 7:23pm

  78. It should be no surprise that I support our presidents regardless of political party, taking military action whenever they deem necessary. ---Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/17/2007 @ 5:07pm

    So then you would have supported Harry Truman firing MacArthur?

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 9:52pm

  79. Posted by HSUBFOOLS 09/17/2007 @ 6:26pm

    Hmm...Conyers had Cindy Sheehan arrested...and she's fairly normal.

    What would he have done to Ramsey Clark and ANSWER, who think Che Guevara was a moderate?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 09/17/2007 @ 9:53pm

  80. what do you mean?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 09:20am

    "For the last few years, the Beltway punditocracy and think-tank-ocracy have blasted antiwar protesters for their "No Blood for Oil" banners, buttons and signs. Simplistic, if not utterly simpleminded, they rail. Will those who've policed what is permissible in our debates about the reasons why Bush & Co. launched this disastrous war now target their venomous attacks on former Federal Reserve Chair Alan Greenspan? They now have reason to--but don't hold your breath. According to Bob Woodward's Washington Post cover story about Greenspan's forthcoming memoir, to be published this Monday, the former Fed Chair writes: " I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." "

    Zoomer it was Ms KVH's "eureka" article on Greenspan that suckered, the willing and the easily seduced, in that I was referring to.

    I was really trying to broaden Crab's horizons about slander; its use and causes eg. is it culpable slander when one assumes that Alan was going to say one thing and broadcast it, when in fact he said the opposite? Those who keep up with the news now know that AG's "war for oil" philosophy was all his own work and neither Cheney or Bush ever mentioned that rationale to him. So though it is a fabrication, it, like most of their other fragile claims, becomes a foundational element in the anti-Bush war rhetoric that is certain to be referenced, unedited, ad infinitum.

    On one hand it again ( Cockburn on Abu Risha) shows the sort of intellectual dysfuntionality that premature (verbal) ejaculation produces. But just as importantly the more general way in which the flimsy house of the anti-Bush brigade is constructed.

    This is a two sided game of "liar, liar your pants are on fire".

    No problems, with me, in others rejecting the war on grounds like pacifism or poor execution or being unnecessary, where valid and rational arguments can be advanced. The rest is for bullshit artists, conspiracy theorists and those with too much time on their hands.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/17/2007 @ 10:16pm

  81. No problems, with me, in others rejecting the war on grounds like pacifism or poor execution or being unnecessary, where valid and rational arguments can be advanced. The rest is for bullshit artists, conspiracy theorists and those with too much time on their hands.

    Posted by LRJONES4 09/17/2007 @ 10:16pm

    so it's o.k. for me to say the war is a twisted aberration because i'm sickened by little kids being melted inside their skin by phosphorus munitions as has happened in fallujah?

    need pictures?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 10:24pm

  82. need pictures?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 10:24pm

    No. But yours is not a rational but an uninformed emotional argument. They surely were not targeted by the US forces in the way that children were raped and torn asunder by in front of their parents, siblings and relatives by Saddam's goons to get information or even worse, capriciously, to maintain civil compliance through awful fear.

    Bad as what you mention is, including being blown to bits by planted and suicide bombs, death mostly comes swiftly. To those who entered Saddam's torture chambers it rarely did.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/17/2007 @ 10:51pm

  83. Posted by LRJONES4 09/17/2007 @ 10:51pm

    need a list of despots the u.s. is currently supporting?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 11:14pm

  84. o.k. necessary preface:

    THIS ARTICLE CRITICIZES AIPAC. I AM NOT ANTI-SEMITE. I LOVE GERSHWIN! AND EINSTEIN. AND (this is ridiculous--why should i have to give examples of cool jewish folk just to post an article about the difficulty in debating the detrimental influence of AIPAC?)

    shalom!

    here it is [aaup.org]

    and it all happened in montana!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2007 @ 11:44pm

  85. need a list of despots the u.s. is currently supporting?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/17/2007 @ 11:14pm

    There are of course quite a few despots that the US doesn't support.

    Some of those it does support have had US support for a long time before Bush W was elected, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia but since Bush they have been reminded of their human rights responsibilities. That's a start.

    Saddam and his regime was/is considered by a variety of commentators on the left and right as being right up with the worst of the worst from the 20th century. Names like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot were and are still mentioned in the same breath as Saddam Hussein. As you are no doubt aware the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Clinton Presidency) agitated for Saddam's removal on the ground of human rights violations against his own people, so his Ba'athist Regime was obviously the top US priority long before W took the reigns of government. Bush obviously and perhaps naively, assumed that the Congress meant what it said. Liberation was in its mind before the word entered his vocabulary but obviously Bush is not all talk and no action.

    It seems to me Zoomer, that if you are not just playing silly little buggers, you should applaud Bush for starting at the top. Perhaps you could submit your ranked list of despots to the neo-cons (as you are well aware progressives do nothing but talk and blog) to see if they can help, by any means available to them, to remove the despots, one by one, or change their hearts. How's that sound to you?

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2007 @ 01:09am

  86. Posted by LRJONES4 09/18/2007 @ 01:09am

    i honestly think the best place to start is at home. ever been to detroit? obviously not under a tyrants rule, yet much could be done to help their people at home.

    the idea that clinton this, or bush that, is naïve. representational government is a thing of the past, if it ever existed. money talks, and armies walk.

    there are canadian mining companies funding despots all over the world.

    there are canadian mining companies causing irreparable environmental damage all over the world.

    yet my supposedly "socialist-light" government does nothing to rein them in. ¿why not?

    as for mr bush, he is a dog that has slept with many fleas [awitness.org]

    and as for mr. clinton, he's got lots of scratching [tinyurl.com] to do as well

    cheers!

    BTW have you ever been here [tinyurl.com]? i imagine it's far from home but you'd be a lucky man if you had.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 02:12am

  87. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 02:12am

    Zoomer,

    Australia is roughly the size of continental USA but with a population of greater Los Angeles with most of that population located on the eastern seaboard.

    Melbourne is about 4000 kms from Kakadu and I have not been there. There are lots of places I haven't been to in this country but travel a bit between capital cities. Perth is about 3500 kms West of Melb and is the capital city of Western Australia. That's where all the mining activity due to China's rapid industrialisation is occurring. China and India should keep us in clover for many decades yet. Australia's resources industry is much like Canada as you describe it.

    Suppose it's a balance between exploiting these resources, for the resultant economic gain, without stuffing up the environment too much. At present we are supplying enough dirty coal to the Chinese to stuff the environment up permanently given that these gases are the culprits. The job now for engineers and scientists is to develop clean coal technologies to mitigate that impact. From memory the largest uranium mine in Aus is at Jabiru on the fringe of Kakadu and an even larger deposit is at Jabiluka in the Kakadu National Park. Think environmentalists may have got a hold put on its development for the present.

    If I make it to retirement, down the track, I would like to have a look around the country then, say over a year or two. There is a fair bit of it. Work keeps me pretty busy right now. Mostly six to seven days a week head down and bum up but wouldn't like it any other way. Was at Penn State in the 80s but didn't make it to Detroit. Think that America for all its faults and mistakes, actual and perhaps imagined is still the greatest force for good in the world.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2007 @ 04:51am

  88. As you are no doubt aware the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act (Clinton Presidency) agitated for Saddam's removal on the ground of human rights violations against his own people, so his Ba'athist Regime was obviously the top US priority long before W took the reigns of government. Bush obviously and perhaps naively, assumed that the Congress meant what it said. Liberation was in its mind before the word entered his vocabulary but obviously Bush is not all talk and no action.

    Except that the Iraq Liberation Act specifically precluded the use of US military force "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act" except for permitting some draw-downs of DoD stocks for anti-Hussein Iraqis. Given that the amount was capped at a measly $97 million, it hardly seems to have been a TOP priority.

    Posted by brunowe at 09/18/2007 @ 06:01am

  89. Posted by LRJONES4 09/18/2007 @ 04:51am

    thanks for the geography class. actually know quite a bit about aussielandia from my public school education. but nothing like having eyes on the ground, so to speak.

    i hope you will have an opportunity to enjoy your retirement, getting to know the land that has made your life what it is.

    good night.

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 10:12pm, upside-down time

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 08:12am

  90. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 10:12pm, upside-down time

    BTW aren't you worried about falling off?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 08:14am

  91. And please don't come back Sad Sack.

    Posted by B_KOOL_66 09/16/2007 @ 7:12pm

    B_KOOL,

    You know that Happy just can't help it. He likes his silver spoon and he means to keep it.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/18/2007 @ 08:43am

  92. I heard yesterday on NPR that there's as many as 180,000 mercs and 'civilian contractors' types in addition to 170,000 US troops. That's 350,000. Add to that the 10-13,000 'coalition troops'. Then add to that the Iraqi troops and police: +/- 360,000 military and 300,000 police per Wiki.

    Isn't that like 1.1 millilion on one side of the fight. Yeah I know even this number has people switching sides back and forth or on both sides, and that's if there is indeed a particular side.

    Yep, then you have the supposed 'other' side. The local (70,000 Sunni,...) and foriegn (800-2000) insurgents, sects/militias( ), crime gangs ( ), 2-5% AGiI,... Anybody got the 'number' for the 'enemy', being flooted around? I read tons about number of attacks, little about estimated numbers as 'the' opposition... Think maybe it's just the total population of Iraq?

    So what if we finally figure out who the enemy is we're fighting in Iraq and it turns out to be us?

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2007 @ 08:58am

  93. Posted by BRUNOWE 09/18/2007 @ 06:01am

    B,

    Don't always get to read all the posts before they get archived. We were about to write the 20/20 game off as not kosher after that debacle but since beating the poms and Bangladesh are now happy to put it up with One Day (50 overs) and Test Cricket (5days).

    Don't disagree with what you say except, that as far as I know, there were no other "despots", to use FZ's term, worth more than a USD97 million cancellation fee so unless you have a competitor, Saddam was probably the "top priority" as far as the list of despots was concerned in 1998.

    The usual anti-war position is encapsulated in Zoomer's snap of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam, on December 20 1983. The history that followed showed that American political attitudes to Saddam and his human rights abuses, including acts of genocide, began to change at an accelerated pace amongst members of the US Senate and Congress.

    By 1988 strong pressure was coming from that source to completely cut ties with Saddam and close down support for him by pressuring companies, with offices in the US, that were supplying him with finance and equipment such as CW precursors.

    The testimony, of the British medical specialist Dr. Christine M. Gosden, 22 April 1988, on the effects caused, by use of the mustard/nerve gas cocktails used at Halabja, that she had observed about a month previously, was one of the catalysts that hastened the march from "Rumsfeld 1983" to the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998". Here is her startling introduction:

    "My trip to Iraq was made on entirely humanitarian grounds, to study what had happened, learn about the effects and try to help the people who had been affected. I am the Professor of Medical Genetics in the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom and I formerly worked for the British Medical Research Council (the British equivalent of NIH). My principal fields of medical research have always been directed to trying to understand the causes of congenital malformations and cancer and provide effective therapies for them. This journey and the horrifying findings have shocked and devastated me to an extent which I had not believed possible. It is the deliberate use of weapons of this ferocity, which have the power to kill or maim in perpetuity, which I find so terrible...."

    There of course were others, such as Iraq expats who were adding to this growing picture that the politicians was getting of Saddam and the suffering of the Iraqi people. The First Gulf War and the evidence of human rights abuses during the Kuwaiti occupation were all working to form the opinion, expressed in the 1998 ILA, that Saddam had to be removed.

    Here is a summary of that Act and the military action that President Clinton took in pursuance of its objectives:

    Findings and Declaration of Policy

    The Act found that Iraq had, between 1980 and 1998 (1) committed various and significant violations of International Law, (2) had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed to following the Gulf War and (3) further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. The Act declared that it was the Policy of the United States to support "regime change." The Act was passed 360-38 in the U.S. House of Representatives[2] and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[3] US President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law on October 31, 1998. The law's stated purpose was: "to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq." Specifically, Congress made findings of past Iraqi military actions in violation of International Law and that Iraq had denied entry of United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) inspectors into its country to inspect for weapons of mass destruction. Congress found: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." On December 16, 1998, President Bill Clinton mandated Operation Desert Fox, a major four-day bombing campaign on Iraqi targets.

    So though, as you say, there was a limit placed on military action, or at least its cost, Clinton obviously thought some US intervention was required and mandated by the Act to achieve its goals and his bombing campaign was in support of that mandate. That in retrospect was probably a futile exercise.

    However what the 1998ILA did formalise was the desire and intention of the US House and Senate to work for the removal of the Saddam Regime. ie. in no uncertain terms it was advocating regime change principally on the basis of human rights abuses. That was at that time the underlying reason and the 1998 ILA was one document used to justify the war in the following resolution.

    AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002, was passed into law by the United States Congress in October 2002, authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War.

    Amongst at least ten factors to justify the use of military force was this reference to the 1998ILA:

    "Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement."

    Which shows that part of the justification for the war was always because of the human rights abuses of the Saddam regime and not as an after thought when no WMD were found. The act itself spells that out (also notice the words "democratic replacement", in the War Resolution 2002 and think of all that that implies). It is only those who are ignorant of this portion of American history that can claim otherwise.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2007 @ 09:16am

  94. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 10:12pm, upside-down time

    BTW aren't you worried about falling off?

    Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 08:14am

    You think we Aussies are stupid or sumpin? No way mate we fasten our seat belts as the sun goes down.

    ps so you can do sums too. It's 11.39 pm now. Off to bed for me once I get this darned harness unfastened.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/18/2007 @ 09:38am

  95. LRJo,

    The UN Charter prohibits any war unless it is out of self-defense or when it is sanctioned by the UN security council. If these requirements are not met international law describes it a war of aggression.[24]

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2007 @ 09:43am

  96. http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_Unite d_States

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1671

    Parade ranked the Sudan's Omar al-Bashir as the world's worst dictator. During his reign OECD countries gave his regime more than $6 billion in non-military aid. The U.S. accounted for more than $1 billion of that aid. Kim Jong-Il was ranked as the second worst dictator and received a little over $1 billion in aid, with more than half of it coming from the U.S. Than Shwe of Myanmar, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan round out the top five dictators on the list. The U.S. contributed $32 million to Myanmar, $1.1 billion to Zimbabwe, and $385 million to Uzbekistan.

    Overall, OECD countries contributed aid to every one of Parade's 20 worst dictators. Combined, these leaders received nearly $55 billion in aid. The U.S. contributed to 19 of the 20 worst dictators; King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia was somehow left off of the U.S. gravy train. In total, the U.S. contributed more than $7 billion in aid to these leaders. In North Korea, Belarus, Ethiopia, Swaziland, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan the U.S. contributed more than 20 percent of the total aid these countries received from OECD countries.

    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1682

    http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/2007/09/nawaz-sharif-deported-soon-a fter.html

    http://www.tomveatch.com/dictatorships.html

    http://tfclub.tripod.com/list.html

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 09:58am

  97. FROSTY, here's the problem...

    It's blackmail money. And damn ineffective, apparently.

    On Sudan, the idea is to use that aid leverage to keep al-Bashir from continueing the Darfur massacres. It isn't working. Problem is, if we don't keep paying him, the Chinese fill up the gap and we lose ANY potential leverage with him. With the new move to allow in UN peacekeepers, it MAY be working.

    On North Korea, that aid we give them, is mostly food. It's also the Clinton Admin's deal to keep their nukes in check and was cut by the Bushies. And now the NKs are packing nukes. Any future DIPLOMATIC deal with Kim will HAVE TO include an aid package...again to keep him from making more nukes or selling what he's got. It's blackmail straight up there.

    On the other guys, you're right...but the problem is again diplomacy. It's a non-starter on those countries unless we pay up first.

    Now, if you want to argue that we cut aid to ANY dictatorship, I might be with you. But that means going against a LOT of the American (even Canadian and European) LEFT...who want "carrots" before "sticks" for these guys. And that means foreign aid.

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 10:06am

  98. Posted by LRJONES4 09/18/2007 @ 09:38am

    southern brother, please, please, please read 10 top ways U.S. enabled Saddam [tinyurl.com]

    please, please, please. makes great bedtime reading!

    a tiny portion of the article by juan cole, professor of mid-east studies at the university of michigan:

    1) The first time the US enabled Saddam Hussein came in 1959. In that year, a young Saddam, from the boondock town of Tikrit but living with an uncle in Baghdad, tried to assassinate Qasim. He failed and was wounded in the leg. Saddam had, like many in his generation, joined the Baath Party, which combined socialism, Arab nationalism, and the aspiration for a one-party state.

    2) After the failed coup attempt, Saddam fled to Cairo, where he attended law school in between bar brawls, and where it is alleged that he retained his CIA connections there, being put on a stipend by the agency via the Egyptian government. He frequently visited US operatives at the Indiana Cafe. Getting him back on his feet in Cairo was the second episode of US aid to Saddam.

    3) In February of 1963 the military wing of the Baath Party, which had infiltrated the officer corps and military academy, made a coup against Qasim, whom they killed. There is evidence from Middle Eastern sources, including interviews conducted at the time by historian Hanna Batatu, that the CIA cooperated in this coup and gave the Baathists lists of Iraqi Communists (who were covert, having infiltrated the government or firms).

    4) In 1968, the civilian wing of the Baath Party came to power in a second coup. David Morgan of Reuters wrote, ' "In 1968, Morris says, the CIA encouraged a palace revolt among Baath party elements led by long-time Saddam mentor Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, who would turn over the reins of power to his ambitious protégé in 1979. "It's a regime that was unquestionably midwived by the United States, and the (CIA's) involvement there was really primary," Morris says. '

    5) The second Baath regime in Iraq disappointed the Nixon and Ford administrations by reaching out to the tiny remnants of the Communist Party and by developing good relations with the Soviet Union. In response, Nixon supported the Shah's Iran in its attempts to use the Iraqi Kurds to stir up trouble for the Baath Party, of which Saddam Hussein was a behind the scenes leader. As supporting the Kurdish struggle became increasingly expensive, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlevi of Iran decided to abandon the Kurds. He made a deal with the Iraqis at Algiers in 1975, and Saddam immediately ordered an invasion of Iraqi Kurdistan. The US acquiesced in this betrayal of the Kurds, and made no effort to help them monetarily. Kissinger maintained that the whole operation had been the shah's, and the shah suddenly terminated it, leaving the US with no alternative but to acquiesce. But that is not entirely plausible. The operation was supported by the CIA, and the US didn't have to act only through an Iranian surrogate. Kissinger no doubt feared he couldn't get Congress to fund help to the Kurds during the beginnings of the Vietnam syndrome. In any case, the 1975 US about-face helped Saddam consolidate control over northern Iraq.

    6) When Saddam Hussein invaded Iran in 1980, he again caught the notice of US officials. The US was engaged in an attempt to contain Khomeinism and the new Islamic Republic. Especially after the US faced attacks from radicalized Shiites in Lebanon linked to Iran, and from the Iraqi Da`wa Party, which engaged in terrorism against the US and French embassies in Kuwait, the Reagan administration determined to deal with Saddam from late 1983, giving him important diplomatic encouragement. Historians are deeply indebted to Joyce Battle's Briefing Book at the National Security Archives, GWU, which presents key documents she sprung through FOIA requests, and which she analyzed for the first time.

    7) The US gave practical help to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War:

    8) The Reagan administration worked behind the scenes to foil Iran's motion of censure against Iraq for using chemical weapons.

    9) The Reagan administration not only gave significant aid to Saddam, it attempted to recruit other friends for him.

    ' Teicher adds that the CIA had knowledge of, and U.S. officials encouraged, the provisioning of Iraq with high-powered weaponry by U.S. allies. He adds: "For example, in 1984, the Israelis concluded that Iran was more dangerous than Iraq to Israel's existence due to the growing Iranian influence and presence in Lebanon. The Israelis approached the United States in a meeting in Jerusalem that I attended with Donald Rumsfeld.

    10) After the Gulf War of 1991, when Shiites and Kurds rose up against Saddam Hussein, the Bush senior administration sat back and allowed the Baathists to fly helicopter gunships and to massively repress the uprising. President GHW Bush had called on Iraqis to rise up against their dictator, but when they did so he left them in the lurch. This inaction, deriving from a fear that a Shiite-dominated Iraq would ally with Tehran, allowed Saddam to remain in power until 2003.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 10:08am

  99. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 10:06am

    well, y'all could airlift money-footballs in directly to the wretched masses. cut out the middle-tyrant.

    seriously, why not just give cash to the poorest of poor. a $1,000 bucks goes a long way in Chad.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 10:16am

  100. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2007 @ 11:25am

    very well then,

    what about allende in chile and mossadegh in iran?

    both were ELECTED democratically. the people chose their alternatives. yet they were brought down. why? how could someone thousands of kilometres away know what was best for them?

    and the results for these people were the same as if the soviets had taken over.

    if a people cries out for help (ex. palestinians), help them. otherwise an imposition by any other name is still an imposition.

    as for bias. sure. i'm very biased. no doubt you've gathered that.

    but i prefer Prof. Cole's (pbuh) bias to your current (and past, both dem and repub. ¿republocrats? would save time and typing) administrations "buy us"

    buy us a country.

    buy us oil.

    buy us more nukes.

    buy us "new, clear, oil" the ultimate alternative fuel

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 12:27pm

  101. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2007 @ 11:05am

    It's not apples and oranges, LVLIB....it's a trick question (trick in the sense that it makes you CONTRADICT yourself).

    You REALLY going to argue that firing MacArthur wasn't Truman "taking military action whenever he deemed necessary"?

    Truth is you support Presidents making military decisions YOU LIKE and oppose them if they make ones you DON'T LIKE.

    Otherwise, you'd just honestly have said "Yes, if PRESIDENT Truman thought that firing MacArthur was best, as CIC, I'd have supported him!"

    But you didn't, because you're dishonest.

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 1:44pm

  102. http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/18/2007 @ 1:49pm

  103. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/18/2007 @ 10:16am

    Figure out how to do that and make it work, FROSTY, I'll work to get you made PM of the Dominion.

    But it never HAS worked in the past. You can't just rain down money over villages in The Sudan. al-Bashir, his troops, and the Janjaweeds would sweep in 5 minutes later and cut the arms off of any villager who was found with more than a Jefferson quarter in their pockets (probably do it even AFTER they handed over the money too!)

    You can't send in aid teams without the government's permission...because they'd be immediate hostages. So you have to send in YOUR troops to guard the aid workers...so that that means an armed invasion. So, you're left with working with the Government and NO Government (especially a corrupt one) is going to let you pass out the bucks, without "wetting their beak"!

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 1:51pm

  104. Posted by MASK 09/18/2007 @ 1:51pm

    i'll think about that one, too!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 2:35pm

  105. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2007 @ 2:53pm

    Hmm, so let's see....if a President wants to go to war against, oh, Switzerland, you'd support it (or do you have MORE "caveats" to your earlier statement?).

    But if he wants to use a STRATEGY that you don't like, you'd vocally and vociferously oppose him? As well as oppose him firing any general he didn't like?

    Well, what if it's a losing strategy....would you oppose it?

    Yes? So if we go back and look at the PRE-Surge strategy of Bush, we'd find dozens of posts where you go after him as hard as you'd go after Truman for not nuking Peiking and Shanghai...uh...right?

    And if Bush wanted to fire, say, General Casey or General Abizaid?

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 3:14pm

  106. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2007 @ 3:38pm

    So you'd support ANY President going to war for ANY reason....but hold out support if you don't like the strategy or which generals they decide to fire? That about it?

    So basically....you're for ANY war...but do have some judgemental processes when it comes to how to fight it?

    That is most curious. You'd think a Christian would first and foremost be AGAINST war, and then support any strategy that ended the war quicker (if a vile armistice with North Korea, instead of massive nuclear bombardment and intimidation).

    And since it's based on your "relationship to God"...apparently "God" enjoys a good war, no matter what...just has a few ideas on how it should be fought....hmmm?

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:20pm

  107. BTW, LVLIB...

    Fair to say, if a President decides that "ISRAEL was a threat to the security of the US and that military action was needed to defend our national security, and/or security interests, or because of a treaty obligation"....no support from you, right?

    Posted by Mask at 09/18/2007 @ 4:44pm

  108. Posted by LRJONES4 09/18/2007 @ 09:38am

    good work, can't have you fallin' off. you're the only one awake when i am.

    be safe.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 9:49pm

  109. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/18/2007 @ 3:38pm

    what would you do if keith ellison became president?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/18/2007 @ 9:51pm

  110. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 12:54am

    first, i congratulate you on answering that question.

    secondly, i congratulate you on your answer.

    BTW if your constitution is strong enough to prevent mr bush from turning the u.s. into a theocracy, i doubt you would have to worry about mr. ellison.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 08:01am

  111. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 12:53am

    I'm sorry, LL, did I miss ANY "caveats" you would put on a President just deciding to go to war (claiming "national security" regardless of what other say)...that you WOULDN'T support?

    BTW, I knew the answer to the "Israel thing". Of course then you have to ask yourself, "What if Israel became a dictatorship...was sponsoring terrorists...and had nuclear weapons?"

    Would you change your mind? I actually doubt it.

    I'm no Israel basher (unlike many on the Left here). But I don't hold it as some "Biblically ordained sacrosanct" either. I think if Israel did ANYTHING, you'd support it....not for any geo-political or strategic interest of the United States, but just because (as the kids' song goes) "The Bible tells you so!"

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 12:53pm

  112. I'm no Israel basher (unlike many on the Left here).

    by MASK

    what about that frikkin' wall? i'd sure like to bash that.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 1:13pm

  113. Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 09/19/2007 @ 1:13pm

    I'm just saying I see some shades of grey, FZ. Neither the "Israel, right or wrong" Crowd OR the "Israel is always wrong" Crowd have it exactly right.

    Posted by Mask at 09/19/2007 @ 2:15pm

  114. Posted by MASK 09/19/2007 @ 2:15pm

    i already knew that.

    you are the master of grey.

    peace, bro.

    off to work

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 3:41pm

  115. If Israel turned into that kind of totalitarian state and sponsor of terrorism, God would take them down just as he has in the past when they forget whom they are supposed to serve.

    Being a blessing to Israel is not optional for Christians and Jews. It is commanded by God. That is one of the reasons why so many in Congress and presidents have historically supported Israel.

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/19/2007 @ 11:07pm

    IF??????????????????

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/19/2007 @ 11:10pm

  116. Nichols wrote:

    "But the founders would be even more worried about the precedent set by the current president's seizure of ungranted authority for warmaking . . ."

    Nichols did not read his history. That matter was decided in between 1819 and 1850. Starting in early 1819, the House of Representatives debated whether to sanction General Jackson's invasion of Florida during the prior year. After 12 days of debate they rejected two bills: one that would have said the invasion was "contrary to the Constitution of the United States", and the other stating that the House "disapproves of the capture and occupation of Pensacola . . . without the authority of Congress." On February 8, 1819, in a vote 100-70, the House decided against both bills (By Mr. Cobb). And as far as the founders, Jefferson himself approved of Jackson's invasion, as did President Monroe and his Secretary of State John Quincy Adams who lied publicly about the whole matter in a public letter to his ambassador to Spain. The matter was solidified by the Marshall Supreme Court in the 1820s. Then, with the invasion of and annexation of half of Mexico in the 1840s the march towards empire was on. Invasions and occupations were intermittant up to WWII, and after that became constant.

    The US government instituted coups in 34 nations since WWII, two since Bush came into office: Haiti and Somalia. And we all know about the Bush plan to overthrow eight nations in the Mideast: Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iraq and Iran. (See the testimony by Wesley Clark on Democracy Now.) The thing is, this is the norm since WWII. And the roots began, not with the "precedent" Nichols refers to with Iraq, but with the first precedent on February 8, 1819.

    It is too bad that someone as reputable as Nichols would imply that the Constitution has somehow prevented wars up to now and that the invasion and occupation of Iraq is some kind of exception and a "precedent." Nonsense. Ask any Native American. William Earl Weeks covered the outline of what happened in Florida in chapters six and seven of "John Quincy Adams and American Global Empire," 1992, Univ. Kentucky Press.

    Posted by Earthian at 09/21/2007 @ 10:26am

John Nichols John Nichols

Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.

Archives

  1. February 2010

  2. January 2010

  3. December 2009

  4. November 2009

  5. October 2009

  6. September 2009

blog roll

Advertisement
Advertisement

Blogs

» The Beat

RNC's Steele Decides It Is O.K. to Play the Race Card | "Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?” he wonders. Maybe he could compare notes with Obama.
John Nichols
23 Comments
Posted 42 minutes ago

» Editor's Cut

New Web Column at The Washington Post | Every Tuesday, I'll be featuring progressive thinking about politics and challenging the Right in my new web column for The Washington Post. Read my first one here.
Katrina vanden Heuvel
34 Comments

» The Notion

When Snow Melts: Vancouver’s Olympic Crackdown | Anger is growing in Vancouver in advance of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Like Olympic clockwork, here comes the media crackdown.
Dave Zirin
49 Comments

» The Dreyfuss Report

The Mind-Boggling Stupidity of Michael Rubin | How an AEI apparatchik's love affair for Ahmed Chalabi blinds him to Chalabi's pro-Iran treachery.
Robert Dreyfuss
36 Comments

» Act Now!

Demand Question Time | Join the call for the President and Congress to implement regular Question Time sessions.
Peter Rothberg
64 Comments

» And Another Thing

How to Counterbalance Focus on the Family on Superbowl Sunday | Give to help low income girls and women.
Katha Pollitt
62 Comments

» Altercation

Slacker Friday | James O'Keefe and Alter-reviews.
Eric Alterman