It is a clear sign of exasperation with Bush when an administration official admits that Bush is willing to sacrifice American troops and Iraqi civilians in order to protect his own delusions.

If you're like me (my regrets in advance), you get a funny feeling in the pit of your stomach when the talking heads start talking about the "job growth" statistics. I think there's a good reason for that funny feeling.

Such reflection would soon lead us to the realization that in situations leading up to war, action often precedes thought.

Have you noticed the recent flurry of commentary advocating the segregation of Iraq by sectarian loyalty?  In other words, if you can't make Shia, Sunni and Kurd play well together, then keep Shia, Sunni and Kurd from sharing the same playground.

In plain English, it's a version of break Iraq up into three separate areas (some people propose separate nations, other separate confederated territories).

From a February, 2003 NY Times article:

From the SF Chronicle:

As with Repub attitudes toward lawsuits, it turns out that the attitude of Repubs toward minority rights in Congress depends mostly on whether Repubs are the minority.

I was tempted to post this to the humor category, but it's too sad...

Why, those money-hungry crazies at Exxon-Mobil, that's who! Gee, did we really believe that anyone with a scientific mind......?

Nobody questions the right of Congressman-elect Keith Ellison to practice any religion he likes, or none at all. The issue at hand is the rejection of the Bible during the swearing-in ceremony. Certainly, the republic will survive if Ellison follows through on his plans to reject the Bible. That is not the point. The reason for the Bible is simply to acknowledge that our rights as Americans and our Constitution are derived from Judeo-Christian values, whether you choose to practice them or not.

[But Mr. DePalma, the swearing-in ceremony is not intended to acknowledge that.  There is no connection between being qualified to serve in the House, and being sworn in to so serve, and a need to acknowledge  what you view as the derivation of our rights as Americans. So what exactly is the complaint from you and Mr. Prager?  Not to mention the inconsistency between your acknowledgment that Mr. Ellison is free to "practice any religion he likes, or none at all," and insisting that he acknowledge that American rights are derived from Judeo-Christian values.  AND, if you want an acknowledgment that our rights are derived from JUDEO-Christian values, I assume Mr. Ellis could satisfy you by carrying the Torah to his ceremonial photo-op?]

Read Older Articles