I'd like to see roughly 99% of them indicted and thrown in prison for some Brokeback Lockdown.

I will say this...I happen to agree with Pelosi that it's time to forget about the "impeachemnt" angle, and not just because of the uncontrollable shakes I get every time I think of the phrase "President Cheney".

When the spying program first leaked, I was all for an impeachment vote, or at the very least a serious investigation. If anything could have motivated the Republicans to wake up and start questioning their leadership like they should, that was it.

But the moment's passed. It's clear that it ain't gonna happen. So let it go and move on. Now, I'm not saying completely drop the issue. It's important to remind the voters that the Republicans in congress made the decission to not hold their leaders accountable for their actions. But the absolute WORST thing that could happen to the Democratic party is to regain control of Congress and make their first action impeachment of the President. Because then it's just petty vengefullness and questionable priorities.

Unless the anger comes from both sides of the aisle, no matter how justified the anger is, it's going to be looked at as "partisan politics" and dismissed. I hope that the Democrats would just get in there, and start making correct decissions going forward, rather than focusing their energy on this red herring.

Speaking of red herrings, my more cynical side thinks that Bush's declining popularity is all part of a devious plan by the Republican party. Having realized that they were far too late for any ammount of backtracking to win enough people back over, instead the goal is to now move Bush and crew as far to the extreme right as possible, so that come election time, the miffed centrists of the party won't say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen what's really going on. Screw the Republicans I'm jumpin' ship", they can say, "Damn, I've woken up and seen that Bush really is off the deep end. But hey, my Republican representative is saying the same thing, so I'll just vote him back in and he can stear things back on course."

I hope that no one here honestly thinks that Iraqis are better off under a dictator? I hear a lot of that. Take a glance at history. You can find newspaper articles criticizing the United States for getting involved in Germany and Japan, that nation-building in those areas would never work, that those people couldn't function under anything but a dictatorship. If you blanked out the names of the countries, you'd think the articles were about Iraq.

And take a look at Germany and Japan now... among the world's strongest economies.

People complain about freedom not coming to the Iraqis without taking a look at the United States history. It took 14 YEARS after we gained independance from the British to get things going. It wasn't just like "The British are gone, now everything is hunky-dory." To boot, we had a civil war as well! It took a Civil War to even attempt to correct the problems in society. President Lincoln SUSPENDED civil liberties during that period of time!! There wasn't a Patriot Act which pretty much only detains people, liberties were outright SUSPENDED during those times! Lincoln had people who acted like Cindy Sheehan hauled off. Why? He felt that there was too much at stake.

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether we should've gone to war in Iraq or not, but we are there now, and it would be disastrous if we pulled out of Iraq now. Nation building is a long process. Iraq is into it 3 years. The United States took 14.

Nation building isn't like constructing a shed, which is a day's work. It's more like building a skyscraper. And it doesn't go perfectly all of the time. We simply can't pull out of Iraq now. It would be a disaster. This is a long process, and for our sake, the citizens of Iraq's sake, and the Middle East's sake, it is vitally important that this works.

Imagine if the people who talk about all the negativity in Iraq were alive when the United States was in the process of building itself up. Using their logic, they'd have thrown in the towel and surrendered to the British.

We did not go into Iraq to nation build. It is not our business to nation build unless asked- we certainly do not invade other countries with the express intent of doing so. We did not invade Japan pre-emptively, we were attacked. Same with Germany. What you describe is called imperialism, and God help us if that is what we are up to over there. It has never worked in the past, and it won't work now.

Saddam wouldn't ask us, would he? Yet when you hear actual Iraqi citizens in the villages, it would appear that they do want us there helping them. Laura Ingraham recently went all out on the Today show, criticizing them for not telling the whole story, not talking to the soldiers, and not talking to the citizens. It looks like there has now been an Ingraham effect... what's that? More positive news from Iraq? Seems like MSM is trying to paint LI as being wrong. Too late.

As far as imperialism goes, I urge everyone to read a political science textbook. The United States isn't practicing imperialism. A requirement to be imperial is to actually have an empire. We don't have one. Another requirement of imperialism is that one nation is trying to extend it's rule over another nation. Again, we aren't making American laws. The Iraqi's now have an elected government who are drafting a constitution and are making up the law of the land for the Iraqis. By the Iraqis and for the Iraqis. That's not imperialistic.

What I described really isn't at all fundamentally different from our own situation when we were founded, Japan, or Germany.

Well there must be lots, because Michelle Malkin wrote a whole book about it. I recommend you at least take a look at Unhinged. Unfortunately, I don't have it handy to quote from at the moment, but if you check it out, various Air America hosts are in there acting like gooks, especially Al Franken. Laura Ingraham once mentioned about how at the RNC04 he went and stuck his finger into her producer's face. I also remember Malkin talking about him wrestling a Dean supporter to the ground at a Kerry rally, and getting into a hissy fit with someone at Fox for "not being liberal enough."

I just saw a book at Barnes & Noble that exposes the many, many lies of Franken, which is ironic because he claims to be the purveyor of all truth.

Anyhow, if people like Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Medved, etc. were to disappear, Franken would have nothing to talk about. He talks about them on an almost daily basis, whereas they rarely talk about him at all. Laura Ingraham, as I already mentioned, brought up his wacky behavior; Ann Coulter reportedly once tried to say "Hi" to him and he accused her of name-dropping when she told someone of how he snubbed her. Ann Coulter dropping Al Franken's name? That's laughable. Ann Coulter doesn't need Franken, but Franken certainly needs Coulter.

"Read a political science textbook"?

Only one?

Uhm, okay. Circa 1977 was the first. Since then, I've lost track how many. And that's just textbooks. I've also read a plethora of political and historical biographies, which imho are far more valuable than any dry textbook. I've lived a fair amount of time, and seen a lot- a lot that you've maybe only read about. Don't believe the rhetoric, Shadoe- that's ignorance. Investigate and look at all possible sides before you form such strong opinions. Don't let other people make them for you, just because they use big words and know important people. No one is infallible, and everyone has an agenda. Find out what it is, and if you can live with it and all it's ramifications, then go for it. But you had better be able to back it up, and not with anything by Ms. Ingraham. She's just too much like that snotty co-ed from Animal House. (shudder).

Oh, and from Mirriam-Webster Online:
imperialism

One entry found for imperialism.
Main Entry: im·pe·ri·al·ism
Pronunciation: im-'pir-E-&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : imperial government, authority, or system
2 : the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence <union imperialism>
- im·pe·ri·al·ist /-list/ noun or adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·tic /-"pir-E-&-'lis-tik/ adjective
- im·pe·ri·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

It's probably best not to imply that those who disagree are unfamiliar with the topic, although it's a tempting trap into which I fall all too often.

Personally, I think there are limits to what the current administration would "permit" the Iraqis to decide. And I'm not automatically disagreeing with that philosophy. Absolutely there are laws they could propose that would merit, at the very least, strong influence. However, that means the benevolent servant ideal where the US merely provides the heavy lifting isn't an accurate description.

Shadoe - I'm sorry... were you saying something? I read Laura Ingraham's name and sort of tuned out.

You were saying something about all of us reading some kind of poli sci book? How do you know we haven't?

Right now, a Christian convert is facing death in Afghanistan. This has created an interesting conundrum for the Bush administration. Do they intervene, and maybe cause the Karzai government incredible difficulties? Do we do what we would normally do, which would realistically be to try and ignore the situation, or in the face of mounting international criticism lodge a complaint with a world body such as the UN? Right now, the rumor is they are going with an insanity move, as no true muslim in their right mind would ever turn christian, but what if that doesn't satisfy the imams? The christian right. left and in-between will go after this admin like nobody's business. We'll see just how non-imperialistic we are with this little drama.

(For the record, I hope they go in with Blackhawks and rescue the poor guy).