oops wrote on May 23, 2007 9:45 PM:Barry's unfair cut today does not distinguish between Oceanside School district (Noonan) and Vista School district (Gibson). Look the scores up and correct your attack.

Media creating a new MYTH … wrote on May 23, 2007 10:44 PM:Over the last several days the mainstream media have been lying, trying to create a new myth that there is a unwritten taboo against a former president criticizing a sitting president. BS!! Tain’t so! But you’ve heard it over and over ever since former president Carter pronounced George W. Bush as the worst president ever. As recently as a few months ago, former President Gerald R. Ford criticized Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, albeit from the grave. In an article in The Washington Post, Bob Woodward quoted from an interview he conducted with Mr. Ford with the understanding that he could only publish Mr. Ford's remarks after he died. Ford did not have the mettle to speak out while he was alive. Eisenhower was critical of John F. Kennedy's domestic policies, the first President Bush pounded on Bill Clinton, now his pal, for his Haiti policy, and Nixon chided the first President Bush Theodore Roosevelt was brutal in his assaults on Taft and Woodrow Wilson, calling Taft a "puzzlewit” and a “fathead". Who better to criticize the sitting president than one who's been there?

The troops knew . wrote on May 23, 2007 10:52 PM:… So Jimmy Carter criticized a sitting president. Some say it is demoralizing for the troops to find out their commander in chief is an arrogant fool who is endangering their lives for his own vain glory. Ridiculous! The troops already knew that.

Hey Barry wrote on May 23, 2007 10:57 PM:I am sure that Del Mar would love to have you. Can I help you pack?

A moral and humble president . wrote on May 23, 2007 11:24 PM: -- President Carter is perhaps the most maligned president ever. He made no effort to promote himself, unlike the self-promoting “wartime president”. President Carter maintained a Christian humility. However, his administration made changes that we still enjoy today. His income tax reforms drove the "economic boon" that Mr. Reagan drove into the ground. By redefining depreciation schedules, industry was able to purchase everything from cars to buildings and write-off those expenses within five years (instead of the previous twenty). However, those reforms did not take effect until Reagan was in office. Reaganites took credit for Carter’s accomplishment.

AMNESTY wrote on May 23, 2007 11:40 PM:Not all illegal are corrupt negative individuals. I've met several illegal alines who refuse to accept any social service and work hard for what they have. Those people do NOT intend to stay here, but rather return to their native countires. That said, isn't if fair we consider each case? Yes, this involves a lot of individual analysis, but since our nation as allowed these people to cross illegally, it makes little sense to condemn them from taking advantage of our servides. Yet, it's true many illegal alines have indeed come here to sell drugs and abuse our system. So, rather then condemn all who came here, we must take responsibility for our failure to secure border and offer those here who are vulnerable the chance to assimilate into our country. I know, I know it's awful, but it's only fair, since we have allowed people to come here and have babies who are citizens. Unless we amend the 14th amendment, it doesn't make sense to condemn all the babies born here. Yes, they should be considered illegal aliens, too, but the reality is they aren't so unless we change the law, we can't treat these children as aliens.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 4:51 AM:Exactly, Hugh Mays!!!! Liberals (not all) audaciously believe talk and action are equivalent; That's why the homeless in Escondido were treated to candle-light vigils the night before the city council meeting, instead of using that night to hand out blankets and sandwiches to actually help them. Symbolism over substance. Liberals (not all) believe illegal aliens are immigrants, instead of criminals. They instead seek to make excuses for criminals, and if you have an opposing view, say: build a fence.. then you are called a hater, a racist, a bigot, and a xenaphobe. We all saw the same tactic when 4 time murderer Tookie Williams was to be executed. They said at the time: he's changed, he's not dangerous anymore, and he helps children through his books. Liberals (not all) don't believe in Terrorism. Except if it's the United States. According to some, we are an imperialist nation sucking the life blood out of innocent third world countries, and extorting them with our military might. We are the world's biggest terrorist per Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore, and other kook-burgers. As to the people blowing up innocent iraqi's or others, why.. their just misunderstood, and they've never really been given a chance to succeed, and are victims of poverty. Of course, all our fault. Just ask em. It is time for liberals to realize they have been lied to by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their ilk. This is not the most ethical congress in history, in fact.. their very ethically challenged. Pelosi and Samoa, Reid and 1.1 mil in very strang land deals, Abscam Murtha, Cold Cash Jefferson, MILCOM Feinstein, and the list keeps on growing. Culture of corruption? Yes, obviously so.

14th amendment to Ron Paul wrote on May 24, 2007 7:01 AM:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 7:59 AM:Barry Mc Elmurry is absolutely right! 100%... Carter was elected because of the Watergate scandal. That is what qualified this guy, that he was an outsider, and no part of the existing political machine in Washington at the time. Americans were tired of Watergate, very tired of a very long Vietnam War, and this time... they wanted a "nice guy." Well, they got a nice guy. That's it. Once in office, his lack of experience showed through and through. If you were a working class American at the time, it was the worst. Malaise does not even begin to describe the absolute failure at all levels of that administration. The only highlight, the only good spot on his long stay in the White House was a peace agreement between Israel & Eypgt. Then again... it was said at the time, that his negociated agreement between to two would bring a long lasting peace into the Middle East. Do you see it? Cause I sure don't.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 8:00 AM:Ditto to what William Lyons said.

Mike America to 14th amendment wrote on May 24, 2007 8:17 AM:How true, unfortuneately! That needs to be changed, ASAP. The 14th amendment can be re-written while THE WALL is being built; done, no more illegal alien problem!

Concerned-1 wrote on May 24, 2007 8:27 AM:Mark Mush wrote a pretty good column in The Californian today. The one point he made that I've been saying forever is that the present situation with the inundation of third world aliens is a result of our governements not enforcing laws that are on the books. We don't need any new laws. We need to enforce the ones we have. I mean really. What was that Einstien said?

Huh? wrote on May 24, 2007 8:42 AM:to "A moral and humble president" 11:24pm. Geez, where to start. "President Carter is perhaps the most maligned president ever."; Yeah, he earned it. He was inept, across the board. "He made no effort to promote himself.."; Where have you been the past 25 years? The guy can't stay out of any President's business. Haiti and Clinton, North Korea and Clinton. The fool Carter couldn't stay away and only wound up compounding matters. He's still promoting himself to this day. "His income tax reforms drove the 'economic boon' that Mr. Reagan drove into the ground." Please. His income tax reforms were a disaster. Stagflation. High unemployment. High interest rates. All results of what happens when you try to use the Fed to control the economy to your liking. The American economy didn't begin to turn until early 1983, a full 2 years after Carter left office. We then enjoyed unprecedented economic growth until 1990, directly attributable to Reagans tax cuts in 1981. The only thing Reagan "drove into the ground" were communists...

Vista Granny wrote on May 24, 2007 8:47 AM:Where to start? Oh well, I'll just say that it's amazing how many far right Republicans seem to know exactly what every Democrat is thinking.Trouble is, they're wrong most of the time. As for the letter regarding desalination plants off the shore in Solana Beach -- good idea, though of course it won't work to keep the bluffs from falling. To those of you who want tax dollars to keep your homes from falling off bluffs you built too close to and fires from eating the homes you stuck in the middle of a forest....why? You had a choice, you saw the problems, you took a chance, now live with it.

to Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 9:16 AM:please also insert "Conservatives(not all)" into your diatribe at 4:51am. Otherwise another straw argument.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 9:35 AM:This just in........ The Democrat leadership has surrendered, on their attempt to surrender in Iraq.

Way to go... wrote on May 24, 2007 9:38 AM:Patricia Gracian. Yeah, impeach the VP. How about we also impeach congressional Democrats. Did you see they will go ahead and fund the Iraq war, after promising they wouldn't? They caved. They lied. More soldiers will die because of their spinelessness. Ready for the slogans? Ready folks? Congressional Democrats lied, Soldiers Died! Pelosi Lied, Soldiers died!

ABOUT the “Ron” problem … wrote on May 24, 2007 9:59 AM:… At least four bloggers yesterday addressed the problem of Ron. For many, Ron’s endless verbosity is a chronic problem on this website. We’ve heard all his rants repeatedly, many times. Hey, the solution is simple. When you get your Sunday edition of the NC Times, do you read every word of every page? Of course not. As soon as you get the paper you toss out all the sections of no interest to you. Do the same with the “Ron rants”. You don’t have to read them. Submitted 23may11:08pm Resubmitted24may9:59am

We trust Jimmy Carter .. wrote on May 24, 2007 10:01 AM:.. It is VERY EASY to take seriously the word of a man that has worked for peace his entire life. However, unlike our current President, Mr. Carter served the U.S. military; his perspectives on WAR and peace are not from watching television. Mr. Carter is has always been known for speaking truthfully and not for his own self interests. However, our the former draft-dodging cheerleader WILL be remembered as THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. The legacy of Mr. Bush will be that of evil propagated upon the world and our nation. War, graft, and TORTURE will remain as a reminder of his policies. Regardless of how his supporters will try to "spin" the facts, the truth will prevail.

History will vindicate .. wrote on May 24, 2007 10:05 AM:.. Courtesy and "unwritten rules" about criticizing sitting Presidents shouldn't apply to the current occupant. He's ... a disgrace to the office. History will vindicate President Carter for speaking the truth.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 10:05 AM:Huh? @ 8:42AM has hit the ball out of the park! The economic crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s was double-digit inflation. Double-digit interest rates and a double-dip recession as far as the eye could see. The first thing that should be said is: Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Volcker was appointed by President Jimmy Carter, who fecklessly allowed inflation to develop. Reagan deserves the credit for denying Volcker the third term he wanted. The case for Reagan's greatness is: 1) He ended the crisis of stagflation and malaise, restoring our country to prosperity and self-confidence. 2) He cut taxes and reduced the size of government. 3) He rebuilt America's military strength and won the Cold War. 4) He lent dignity to the office, unlike a more recent ex-president one could name. Federal government spending was a quarter higher in real terms when Reagan left office than when he entered. As a share of GDP, the federal government shrank from 22.2 percent to 21.2 percent. And YES... Reagan did increase taxes too! Social Security taxes went up in 1983. Then in 1986, Under a bi-partisian bill Reagan agreed with Democrat House Speaker Tip O'Neil to increase taxes with an equal offset of spending cuts. O'Neil reneged, and spending went up $1.82 to every dollar or increase. Those of us old enough to remember, we all remember the ambulance Tip would rent to bring Reagan's budgets from the White House to the steps of the Congress, so he could have a press conference and pronounce the budgets Dead on Arrival (DOA).

Hey Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 10:08 AM:This just in......I am not a teacher (no one who knows me would accuse me of such), but in this case may I offer some advice? Please, pretty please, learn and use the proper "they're", "their" and "there". "They are" is shortened to "they're", "their" is possessive as in "their opinions" AND "there" is a place. Using them all in one sentence - They're eating their steaks at the table over there. Ditto with the "your", which is possessive and "you're" which is the contracted form of "you are". Used in a sentence - You're making it harder to pay attention to your message by using the wrong words. I am not the only one to try to call this to your attention. All I ask is that you try. Please.

To We trust Jimmy Carter .. wrote on May 24, 2007 10:21 AM:I know not about the worst President ever, but GWB is working really, really hard to get there, one might even say that he's making a truly Herculean effort. Truth? What is truth? Sadly, to some it is the spin of the moment. That's why I HATE PC, it dances around the edges of truth, yet manages to avoid it by a mile, or at least corrupt it to the point that it is not recognizable.

To Huh? … wrote on May 24, 2007 10:22 AM:… Thanks to blogger (8:42AM) for confirming the premise that former presidents have criticized a sitting president (Carter). Your tirade was ineffective except to prove my point that this so-called unwritten rule is pure myth.

We trust Jimmy Carter .. wrote on May 24, 2007 10:25 AM:.. It is VERY EASY to take seriously the word of a man that has worked for peace his entire life. However, unlike our current President, Mr. Carter served the U.S. military; his perspectives on WAR and peace are not from watching television. Mr. Carter is has always been known for speaking truthfully and not for his own self interests. However, our the former draft-dodging cheerleader WILL be remembered as THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. The legacy of Mr. Bush will be that of evil propagated upon the world and our nation. War, graft, and TORTURE will remain as a reminder of his policies. Regardless of how his supporters will try to "spin" the facts, the truth will prevail.

Nick wrote on May 24, 2007 10:33 AM:To George Hedjuk: You are quite right my friend. The Encintias City Council is not about the community, all they care about is the almighty dollar. How many of you homeowners have had the "pleasure" of doing business with the planning dept and the city council? Did it leave a good taste or a bad taste in your mouth? Most of us already know the answer to that. They'll tell Johnny Homeowner they can't build a retaining wall over 4' unless they step it to make it more visually appealing, but they'll let the Developers build anything they like as long as they pay. Take a look at the giant, ugly eyesore of a wall just east of Westlake they built for the Custom Million dollar homes that most locals can't afford. The development off of Quail Gardens you speak of is just another development most locals can't afford either. How many born and bred locals actually live in Encinitas Ranch? The City Council panders to these big Developers for one reason, MONEY, not the best interests of the community. The Planning Dept raised all of it's fees anywhere from 150% to 400%, it's reasoning, that fees haven't been raised in 6 years. When I posed the question on who came up with the new figures and who OK'd it, guess what? The Planning Dept says it goes by what other citites are charging and the City Council rubber stamped it, NO IMPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY! No rhyme nor reason for the new figures other than that's what others are charging. Apparently, if other cities are ripping off it's tax payers, Encinitas finds the nees to follow suit. Enjoy your remodel folks!

PARAGON vs. PARIAH . wrote on May 24, 2007 10:34 AM:.. It is difficult to argue with Carter, not just on the basis of his stature but on the basis of his astute read of the current global politics. And that's what scares the Bush White House. When a well regarded former president gets specific about the current president's dramatic failures -- and about the damage that is done when foreign leaders align with Bush -- this embattled White House gets tense. So the president's aides are hitting back, with all the muscle they can muster, at Carter. Bush claims that Carter has made himself “irrelevant”. Isn’t THAT a joke!

ASSAULT ON REASON . wrote on May 24, 2007 10:37 AM: -- In in brand new book, “The Assault on Reason”, Al Gore excoriates George W. Bush, asserting that the Bush is “out of touch with reality,” that his administration is so incompetent that it “can’t manage its own way out of a horse show,” that it ignored “clear warnings” about the terrorist threat before 9/11 and that it has made Americans less safe by “stirring up a hornets’ nest in Iraq,” while using “the language and politics of fear” to try to “drive the public agenda without regard to the evidence, the facts or the public interest.”

Reason to criticize BUSH . wrote on May 24, 2007 10:41 AM:- For the first time in American history, the Executive Branch of our government has not only condoned but actively promoted the treatment of captives in wartime that clearly involves torture, thus overturning a prohibition established by General George Washington during the Revolutionary War. It is too easy - and too partisan - to simply place the blame on the policies of President George W. Bush. We are all responsible for the decisions our country makes. We have a Congress. We have an independent judiciary. We have checks and balances. We are a nation of laws. We have free speech. We have a free press. BUT they all failed us!

A WELL-INFORMED CITIZENRY .. wrote on May 24, 2007 10:43 AM:.. Here is a message from Al Gored: QUOTE “Our Founders' faith in the viability of representative democracy rested on their trust in the wisdom of a well-informed citizenry, their ingenious design for checks and balances, and their belief that the rule of reason is the natural sovereign of a free people. The Founders took great care to protect the openness of the marketplace of ideas so that knowledge could flow freely. Thus they not only protected freedom of assembly, they made a special point - in the First Amendment - of protecting the freedom of the printing press. And yet today, almost 45 years have passed since the majority of Americans received their news and information from the printed word. Newspapers are hemorrhaging readers. Reading itself is in decline. The Republic of Letters has been invaded and occupied by the empire of television. Radio, the Internet, movies, cell phones, iPods, computers, instant messaging, video games and personal digital assistants all now vie for our attention - but it is television that still dominates the flow of information. . “ END QUOTE If the public has curbed its reading of newspapers, do you think many of them are reading these blogs? Maybe this is all a waste of time.

Reardon wrote on May 24, 2007 10:57 AM:The Wall Street Journal did a survey of 185 Historians about the Presidency. 85 Historians ranked the Presidents, and the results were normalized for Historians political actvism. The results were that G W. Bush ranked 19, and Jimmy Carter ranked 34 -- out of 40. The numbers speak for themselves.

Huh? wrote on May 24, 2007 11:01 AM:No thanks to blogger 10:22 am for failing to grasp the difference between an ex-Prez constructively criticizing / disagreeing with a sitting Prez vs. blatantly interfering with a sitting president's policies and actively undermining said president's goals or using such childish and unproffessional quotes in public ("worst president ever"). Carter has a lot to learn about etiquette. He can start by talking to Bush I and Clinton.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 11:03 AM:A poll for the American Security Project conducted by Marttila Communications during the first week of May reveals that only 28 percent of Americans support a timetable to remove all U.S. troops within a year. By contrast, 40 percent of Americans favor removing troops only after Iraq has a basic level of security, while 30 percent more want troops to stay or even increase in order to "get the job done." In fact, 48 percent of Americans are more concerned that "Democrats will pull American forces out too quickly, thereby strengthening the terrorists" compared to 41 percent who are more concerned that Republicans will continue "a failed policy" and keep our forces in Iraq too long. Those who think that supporting a timetable is key to winning the Democratic presidential nomination are also mistaken. Compared to 42 percent of Democrats who want to pull out all U.S. troops within a year, 46 percent of Democrats want troops to stay until Iraq is stabilized, and another 9 percent want troops to stay or increase. Democratic disappointment is understandable, but misplaced. For while many Democratic officials believe that last November's election was a mandate to end the war in Iraq and bring U.S. troops home as quickly as possible, the American people do not. Given the changes, the fip-flops, and the voting for, before voting against, Americans it would seem are wary of them. Especially since most Democrats are continuing to talk about losing in Iraq. Perhaps if they began speaking about a strategy of success, voters might again change their minds. Determined to lose at any cost appears to be the cause celeb for many, trying to out run the other out of Iraq, is seen by many as a race to defeat, and a defeat more, and more Americans are saying No to.

To Paragon/Pariah wrote on May 24, 2007 11:05 AM:You're right. If Carter was as terrible as some are saying, there really wouldn't be any reason for Bush to care what he says, certainly not enough to counterattack. But what scares Bush is not a person but the truth (which also, to our dear leader, is increasingly irrelevant). Who cares wheat kind of President Carter was, anyhow. He is a person who is offering his opinion, and he is often correct. The job he did as President 30 years ago has no bearing on this at all. As usual, the Bush defenders attack the person, not the claims.

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 11:11 AM:The other day I found myself, for the umpteenth time, driving behind a Kerry/Edwards supporter whose vehicle also bore the slogan ‘FREE TIBET’. It must be great to be the guy with the printing contract for the ‘FREE TIBET’ stickers. Not so good to be the guy back in Tibet wondering when the freeing thereof will actually get under way. But for those of us on the arrogant unilateralist side of things, that’s not how it works. ‘FREE AFGHANISTAN’. Done. ‘FREE IRAQ’. Done. Not in your name? Don’t worry, it’s not.

And now Al Gore wrote on May 24, 2007 11:21 AM:In his new book, and in an editorial in the Guardian, Al Gore is criticizing the Bush regime in stronger and more specific terms than did Carter. I know a lot of bloggers here despise Gore. No matter: more Americans wanted him to be President than wanted W in 2000. And that was the compassionate conservative, uniter not divider Bush...you remember? Talk about false promises! If only the people had gotten their man in 2000, Iraq would be ruled by a contained, harmless Hussein, thousands who are dead would be alive, tens of thousands who are maimed wouldn't be, the world would be safer, science would be flourishing. Oh, well.

to Reason wrote on May 24, 2007 11:27 AM:An American liberal's definition of torture differs greatly with mainstream America's definition of torture. Most American's are a-okay with how we interrogate. It's only the loony far left who cry torture when a terrorist isn't given their Koran on a silver platter at his beckon call.

to ASSAULT wrote on May 24, 2007 11:34 AM:Al Gore excoriates Bush in his new book? Wow, who'd have thought? I am utterly floored! All this time, I always thought Gore was so fair and balanced with his opinions and in his speeches. How shocking. Yep, Who better to fairly critique President Bush than a hyperpartisan and sore loser hack like Al Gore? Who else do you have that fairly critiques Bush? Michael Moore? Howard Dean? Kucinich?

14th Amendment to Mike America wrote on May 24, 2007 11:50 AM:To change me a bill must pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. Or you can a call a Constitutional Convention by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and then that Convention can propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. You're in charge Mike. Go for it.

carter wrote on May 24, 2007 12:02 PM:jimmie carter may have not been the greatest president ever, but he doesn't need to take all the blame for the killer high interest rates. As I understand it the inflation was caused by the cost of the Vietnam War. The Johnson and Nixon admins. didn't want to increase the opposition to it by also increasing taxes to pay for it so they printed more money this caused the inflation. I wonder if we're going to have the same problem with Iraq and Bush not increasing taxes to pay for it. And jeez Ron, Reagan did not win the Cold War. He helped, of course, but it was an accumulation of events over 40 years that brought down the Soviet Union. Mostly stuff of their own doing. I know the conservatives love to lionize Reagan, but he was a great guy and an average president. After Nixon, Ford and Carter who wouldn't look great.

also wrote on May 24, 2007 12:06 PM:And while you're glorifying Reagans acheivements.....didn't he have a Democratic Congress?

Does "balance" equal "true"? wrote on May 24, 2007 12:06 PM:Some of us...no MANY of us, including major media...have been brainwashed by FoxNews into thinking that "fair" or "balanced" is the highest thing to aim for. We've come to believe that all controversial issues have two sides and that good debate means giving each its amount of time. This is rediculously false. What about truth? What about issues in which the facts are overwhelmingly on one side...does the other deserve equal time in the interest of fairness? Just because someone has a point of view does that automatically invalidate their claims? So here again is "to Assault" at 11:34, as usual going after the person of Gore, and using the attack dogs of "fairness" and "balance". But notice that "to Assault" omits one thing: an evaluation of the actual claims that Gore makes, to examine whether they are true. Ahhh, never mind...what'd the poet say? "I'm sure it wouldn't interest anybody outside of a small circle of friends."

Polling about Iraq wrote on May 24, 2007 12:10 PM:Can anyone give us polling results of how Iraqis want us to conduct our policies there? My last info was that about 70+% wanted the US out ASAP and that a majority felt it was reasonable to shoot at American soldiers. It seems that their President, like our President, serves masters other than the people who so heroically elected him.

Free? wrote on May 24, 2007 12:13 PM:Afghanistan is free? Iraq is free? It must be nice to be a Bushie. You get to redefine words at will, to suit your political desires. Does "Free Tibet" mean "invade China"? I don't think so...but truth is so inconvenient.

Huh? wrote on May 24, 2007 12:14 PM:Oh yeah, and Carter could also learn some etiquette from Reagan. Reagan's gone of course, but Carter could go to his grave and speak to him in spirit. While there, he could also thank Reagan for saving our country.

to to Reason wrote on May 24, 2007 12:17 PM:First, I think you are factually incorrect when you say that most Americans (everyone but the loony left) thinks that the worst things we are doing to detainees is not torture. Second, there is that nasty matter of the law. The Red Cross, the major human rights organizations, the Geneva Convention (which, when we signed on, became US law), and a US court have all said this is torture and not all right at all. If you're right that mainstream America thinks it's all a-ok, then mainstream America has a criminal mentality. You sure it's the left that's loony?

GOP: Party of Torture .. wrote on May 24, 2007 12:24 PM:.. The nation has come to understand how the Republicans have become the Party of Torture. On April 16, the Bush allies in Congress blocked a bill that would require the White House to disclose the location of secret prisons run by the CIA and to reveal the amount spent annually by American intelligence agencies. The vote on the intelligence bill was a blow to Senate Democrats, newly in control of Congress, who had aspired to bring more transparence to the dark and nefarious dealings of the Bush torture chambers around the world. Opponents of the legislation, led by Senator Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, won enough support on Monday to prevent the bill from going to the Senate floor for a final vote. There is a depraved malaise in the Republican party which continues to justify and enable torture.

Frank wrote on May 24, 2007 12:25 PM:I have a couple concerns for blogger "And now Al Gore"...You meekly dismiss Saddam as "harmless". Was he harmless to those who lived within the borders of Iraq? Within the borders of Iran? Saudi Arabia? Israel? Just wondering. And...if we didn't go into Iraq, "science would be flourishing"? Maybe I'm missing something, but did science come to a screetching halt over the last few years? If so, I hadn't noticed. In fact, many wonderful medical advances have occurred - too many to list here. Also, Global Warming "science" certainly hasn't slowed any.

Concerned-1 wrote on May 24, 2007 12:29 PM:Me hate Al Gore? No way, he gave us the Internet and global warming. What a great mind!

Thank you, 14th Amendment .. wrote on May 24, 2007 12:37 PM:… Thank you for reminding anti-Americans of how our Constitution works and of the amendment process (11:50 AM), which our sagacious Forefathers deliberately made laborious and deliberative. This prevents people like Mike America and would be dictators like Bush from totally tramping the rule of law, the foundation of our liberty. When I joined the Army 49 years ago, I took an oath to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States. I still hold myself to that oath, though Mike America may never have taken such an oath. Did Mike America ever serve in the Military? If so, does he feel he now has the right to renounce his oath?

to Reason wrote on May 24, 2007 12:39 PM:And what, exactly, are we doing to detainees that would constitute torture? Remember, the International Red Cross is a far left organization that is miles to the left of mainstream America. I'm interested in finding out exactly what methods are being used today, right now, that could be construed as torture.

to Frank wrote on May 24, 2007 12:44 PM:Saddam in 2003 was, I believe, pretty harmless. His enemies had been purged, his army virtually gone, his every move watched, his bases bombed at will. He was an unspeakable tyrant and murderer, but we didn't invade in 2003 because of that (we kinda liked him back in the day) but because he was an imminent threat to the US. No, science didn't come to a screetching hault after 2000, but many scientists were edited and many resigned from government research positions because their work was filtered for the sake of ideology and votes. Bush was in favor of teaching creation science, which is an insult to the scientific community. Science needs to be free and wholly encouraged, and Bush has been the least supportive of free inquiry of any President since Sputnik made Americans care about such things. Global Warming science is thriving internationally, while our top climatologists complain of federal intervention in their research. Also, it's not just a matter of amount of research, it's also a matter of respect for the intellectual enterprise and process of science, and Bush has worked to undermine this. His fans increasingly believe that science is just another religion, based on its own secular faith. This is nonsense and a demented misunderstanding of how science actually works and what its aims are...but Bush gets votes feeding this and the effects will be felt for a generation.

to repeat something rather important wrote on May 24, 2007 12:49 PM:More Americans voted for Al Gore than for George Bush. The efforts here to paint Gore as a marginal nutty person are pure nonsense. And I am not talking about election problems, just the plain, straightforward popular vote. I'm not saying Gore should have been President...I understand the electoral system and good campaign strategy, but again, he did get more votes than did Bush, and this tends to invalidate most of the things you folks sling his way.

2-Concerned-1 … wrote on May 24, 2007 12:51 PM:… Me hate George W. Bush? No way. He gave us torture and leadership of the axis of evil. What a great mind!

A question for the military buffs wrote on May 24, 2007 12:55 PM:It seems likely that our military presence in Iraq will continue for quite a long time, several years at the minimum. And at the current levels or more. Yet the troops that are there are already on third or fourth deployments, include a huge number of national guard troops, and make use of untrained people such as air force personnel to do policing/combat duties. My question is, how will we do it? Where will the troops come from? How will they manage there successfully if the stop-loss and redeployments just keep on coming? I know there are many who blog here with military expertise. Can you answer?

A thought wrote on May 24, 2007 12:59 PM:Can you imagine our grandparents complaining that Nazis in prisoner of war camps were denied their right to "Habeas Corpus" because they weren't given a slick lawyer courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer and tried in an American court? Giving captured soldiers and terrorists from foreign lands the same constitutional privileges as Americans on trial for robbery or murder would so hamper the effort that it would practically make fighting a war impossible -- which probably has a lot to do with why pacifists on the left are suggesting that very foolish course of action.

I feel bad wrote on May 24, 2007 1:08 PM:I just raised my voice at my next door neighbor a few minutes ago. He was apparently upset about it. Being the liberal he is, I think he may actually constitute my yelling as torture. Did I torture my neighbor?

Concerned-1 wrote on May 24, 2007 1:09 PM:Touchey! What a great country!

To GOP wrote on May 24, 2007 1:16 PM:President Clinton started the practice of rendition in the 90's. That makes the Democrat Party the Party of Torture?

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 1:25 PM:Torture to the left would mean to go a whole day without a caffe latte. But it goes back to what I said earlier. These guys are for what they perceive as the "under dog's." Heck, in Cindy Sheehan's world view, these terrorists are freedom fighters. In their mind, these terrorists, muderers, etc. Have had a very difficult life, and we should not punish them, we need to understand them, and feel their pain. It is because of America's terrible unfairness that these impoverished people are lashing out, in pain, against a system that has systematically oppressed them. It is understandable that they would lash back against those who would make slaves of them, obviously we are the slave masters to the left. Having no promsing possiblities for improving their own lives, they become criminals in order to survive. It's much like our own soldiers. Their not in Iraq because of freedom or liberty. They are dupes, and poor, and need college money. This is the liberal DNA. They see victims in everything, except people who sabatoge their own lives, it's always someone else, a conspiracy, a boogey man. They see what they perceive as criminal injustices, when in actuallity, it's simply life on life's terms.

Reagan wrote on May 24, 2007 1:26 PM:Did Reagan save our country? Huh? I didn't know we needed to be saved, for one thing. For another, I remember huge deficits and law-breaking, funding of dictators and terrorist groups. Reagan might have been the first President who was selected purely on the basis of his image, the man who completed what Jack Kennedy started: made-for-tv Presidency, a tribute to our collective dumbing down. He is portrayed as some kind of hero. The Republican party and many conservatives sell the idea that he singlehandedly defeated Communism, a patent absurdity (and the more we learn about the true state of the USSR military and economy during the cold war, the more absurd this claim becomes). I never understood his standing in many people's minds. Never got it, I guess.

More about Al Gore … wrote on May 24, 2007 1:29 PM:… Al Gore is criticizing the Bush regime in stronger and more specific terms than did Carter, just as stated by blogger 11:21 AM. Though Hussein was a ruthless and cruel man, he posted far less danger to the United States than George W. Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney. Domestic enemies pose a far greater to our Republic than the Iraqi People, who never attacked us, never even threatened to attack us, and had no effective means of waging war against our military until Bush invaded and occupied their land. Domestic enemies degrade our reputation, trample our civil rights and liberties, and bankrupt our treasury. We must stop the insanity of the Republicans trying to make our nation the policeman for the whole world. The world will always have tin horn dictators and tyrants like Saddam Hussein, but we must not become bogged down in every quagmire around the world, even in those that have rich oil deposits. Five years after Bush leaves office this nation will once again have record high interest rates. That is the price of paying for war and a devalued currency.

"Marshall Law" wrote on May 24, 2007 1:33 PM:Hypothetical question: if, after 9-11 or Katrina, Bush would have declared martial law, declared the kind of emergency that would greatly enhance his own powers relative to the Congress...would you have favored this or opposed it? So many Bush defenders here portray themselves as the real patriots, I'm really curious about how you'd all feel if that had occurred. Would you be in favor of George Bush unilaterally running the country, even in an emergency? You feel that his skills, abilities, character, and competence would make him the right man to rule the country in a crisis?

Real Torture wrote on May 24, 2007 1:35 PM:From "Smoking Gun"....MAY 24--In a recent raid on an al-Qaeda safe house in Iraq, U.S. military officials recovered an assortment of crude drawings depicting torture methods like "blowtorch to the skin" and "eye removal." Along with the images, soldiers seized various torture implements, like meat cleavers, whips, and wire cutters.

NOT Faux Torture wrote on May 24, 2007 1:36 PM:The images, which were just declassified by the Department of Defense, also include a picture of a ramshackle Baghdad safe house described as an "al-Qaeda torture chamber." It was there, during an April 24 raid, that soldiers found a man suspended from the ceiling by a chain. According to the military, he had been abducted from his job and was being beaten daily by his captors.

NOT Faux Torture redux wrote on May 24, 2007 1:37 PM:In a raid earlier this week, Coalition Forces freed five Iraqis who were found in a padlocked room in Karmah. The group, which included a boy, were reportedly beaten with chains, cables, and hoses. Photos showing injuries sustained by those captives can be found on Smoking Gun...

Alf wrote on May 24, 2007 1:45 PM:Why are some of you using the "Clinton method"? You know, the "What is sex?" bull, only you are asking a question to which the answer is already well defined, as referred to in the 12:17 post of "to to Reason" when you ask "What is torture?". Go look it up, stop asking questions designed specifically to rationalize barbaric, immoral behavior. I would have said stupid questions, but they are not. The party that prides itself on being "moral" stoops to moral relativism, a charge they often level at the Liberals. I would say shame on you, but that requires the capacity for shame, something lacking in some of you. Unabashedly ashamed of some of you and still a Libertarian, Alf.

America has had it with Bush . wrote on May 24, 2007 1:48 PM:.. The results of a poll by CBS News/NY Times, published today show Americans now view the war in Iraq more negatively than at any time since the war began, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. Six in 10 Americans say the United States should have stayed out of Iraq and more than three in four say things are going badly there - including nearly half who say things are going very badly. Will Bush stay in office until the end of his term? Can the nation afford to be rudderless with Bush at the helm?

Reardon wrote on May 24, 2007 1:49 PM:You have to love some bloggers -- they condemn putting underwear on prisoner's heads and walking them with dog leashes -- while at this very second, two American soldiers are being autopsied to discover their torture wounds and their cause of death -- and they certainly did not die of natural causes. That simple juxtaposition, alone, defines the problem. Even "waterboarding" does not last more than 30 seconds, and never results in permanent damage...but this means of "torture" is nothing compared to the treatment of our soldiers. "GOP Part of Torture" needs to go and talk with Al-Quida if he/she opposes torture -- but he/she is safe criticizing America. BTW, if the Democrats win, they will abandon their complaints and do exactly the same as do Republicans – because they too do not want America to suffer further attacks. Aside from their current political bashing, most Democrats are still patriots, they are just playing partisan politics.

I love Al Gore wrote on May 24, 2007 1:56 PM:If he runs for president, he will get my vote, again.

Grammar for Ron … wrote on May 24, 2007 2:01 PM:… Loved you succinct little grammar and spelling lesson for Ron (10:08 AM). I keep seeing his errors, and have been somewhat dismissive of them, because they seems relatively innocuous compared to his flawed ideas. But after a while, the steady accumulation of these little peccadilloes become unbearable. Clarity of though is strongly coupled with good writing skills.

In the know wrote on May 24, 2007 2:02 PM:The troops and the people know we have a bogus president with a bogus cause--but does Ron?

Gore '08 wrote on May 24, 2007 2:14 PM:Al Gore is my hero. Rumor has it he is up for a Nobel Peace prize. If he doesn't run in '08 I will write him in. There is no one else currently running who can hold a candle to him. He won the popular vote in '00 - I am willing to give it another go. AL GORE FOR PRESIDENT! And Ron, courtesy demands you don't bash my choice, as I didn't bash yours when you said you like Giuliani. Thank you.

Mike America to 14th amendment wrote on May 24, 2007 2:24 PM:You sound very well versed on constitutional law. I assumed changing or re-amending an amendment would be a burdemsome process, but apparently you revel in our current situation, I don't. There also seems to be some controversy over the interpretation of the 14th amendment; your opinion please. But at the end of the day we're going to get what ever the {people} in Washington shove down our throats. Excuse me; I have to get back to the phones, I'm not ready to give up.

Bushies wrote on May 24, 2007 2:38 PM:For an administration that has been revealed as the most corrupt, self-serving, dictorial, law-breaking and non-responsive to the will of the people administration in the history of the United States, it is beyond my comprehension that some people still support this behavior as acceptable. I could throw out some insulting suggestions, but the truth is, I really don't understand. Are party liners so stubborn that they will defend their party right or wrong? That just seems very strange to me. And no, I am not a party-liner. The Republicans have lost my respect as have the Democrats. I will not cast a vote for a liar, a cheat or a law-breaker, regardless of the party.

Caution! wrote on May 24, 2007 2:49 PM:If I were a Democrate ... which, in saying, doesn't mean I am a Republican ... I would go slow bragging about the popular vote in 2000 until you have read "The Myth of the Rational Voter," by Bryan Caplan

in the know wrote on May 24, 2007 2:55 PM:You know, it's funny when people still talk about Al Gore inventing the internet. Anyone that is "in the know" knows that he never said that. He was making a claim that he was involved in and took initiatives that helped the internet get mainstreamed. He never said or even insinuated that he "invented" it. So why after all these years do people still say he claimed to have "invented" the internet. Either they just do not know or they are liars. Either way it makes me chuckle at the knuckleheads who say it. And it's always a sure sign that the person saying it just can not be taken seriously.

My Father wrote on May 24, 2007 3:09 PM:Fought in WWII in the Air Force, and he was proud of the United States' humane treatment of the enemy. My father was a ethical man who fought to defend the country he believed was the finest in the world. He believed in the rule of law, the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. He felt that if we lowered our own standards, we would be no better than the enemy. My father did not believe in torture, even for the Nazis.

to I feel bad wrote on May 24, 2007 3:13 PM:was there water boarding involved in the exchange between you and your neighbor? If "yes" then "yes" you tortured your neighbor. If "no" then "no" you did not torture your neighbor.

Frank wrote on May 24, 2007 3:14 PM:You mean, in retrospect, in 2003 Saddam was pretty harmless. But throughout the 90's right up until 2003, very few would dare consider him harmless. The politicians and opinion journalists that wrote about the dangers of Saddam over the years, and now pretend that they really didn't think he was a threat is appalling. I don't need to list all the Democrats over the years who preached what a threat Saddam was. Look at his own record. His own bloody coup; his iron hand holding onto power; invading Iran and using chemical weapons; gassing the Kurds; the list goes on. As for science being suppressed at the federal level, welcome to bureaucracy. It's been going on for years. No, science is not a religion. No one is saying any such thing. But the shaky science upon which global warming rests leads some of us to think that the whole global warming craze has more to do with religion than it does with science.

To Concerned-1 wrote on May 24, 2007 3:21 PM:It's Touche.

Blog observation wrote on May 24, 2007 3:22 PM:Don't argue with an ignorant man or a bystander surely won't not know which one is ignorant.

My neighbor just yelled at me... wrote on May 24, 2007 3:24 PM:...and his bulging eyes, foaming mouth and foul smell was very alarming. Fortunately, he went back in the house. I might have to put my house up for sale, my children play in the yard.

to A question for the military buffs wrote on May 24, 2007 3:25 PM:A draft is one option. Although the country will most likely not support one. Economics is another option. If the trend of a widening gap between rich and poor continues the military will have many new "recruits" to choose from. Oh, and i'm not talking about the rich folks. The military is a great option for someone who has no other options. Personally I'd like to see a draft as it would make more people more involved in the policy decisions that their elected officials make. It would also teach some valuable life lessons and skills to a generation in dire need of character building. Many conservatives that I know do not support a draft because the tagline of "it's an all volunteer army and these guys signed up for it" would no longer apply.

to a thought wrote on May 24, 2007 3:30 PM:You said a crucial phrase: prisoners of war. No, they were not given a slick lawyer nor all the constitutional privileges as US citizens. But they would have been given their rights under the Geneva Conventions, which the US signed. Our President, you might recall, insists that detainees in his so-called "war on terror" are not POWs and are therefore not covered under Geneva (an opinion which an American court has overruled). If Bush had declared them POWs and treated them according to international and US law as applies to POWs, there'd be no complaining about it. It was Bush who decided to put these people and his treatment of them outside any existing laws. Sorry, that's criminal. And if anyone thinks the Red Cross is a far left international organization, then, again, I have to say that you've drifted into the criminal mindset that our dear leader thrives on. If you think of the photos from Abu Graib, the nakedness, the humiliation, the dogs, the fake electrical wires, the hoods, and waterboarding, I believe that all these things are considered beyond the pale by all international human rights groups (the same ones we quote and rely upon when we are criticizing other countries, by the way), the Geneva Conventions, the US Courts, and even th{e} Red Cross.

To Reardon wrote on May 24, 2007 3:30 PM:Gosh, how convenient for you to forget to mention that poll was taken over two years ago. Oopsies. "In February and March 2005, the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal asked an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rate the presidents on a 5-point scale, with 5 meaning highly superior and 1 meaning well below average. Eighty-five scholars responded, and the presidents are ranked in order of mean score, adjusted to give equal weight to Democratic- and Republican-leaning respondents." How do you suppose they would rank him today?

Frank wrote on May 24, 2007 3:32 PM:Thought I'd dig up this little tidbit for you...In his October 10, 2002 speech authorizing the use of force against Iraq, Senator Edwards said this:"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

a question wrote on May 24, 2007 3:37 PM:I assume most of the bloggers here are retired. So my question is, why are you so mean spirited and seemingly uneducated? I mean, you've had your whole lives to get an education. And doesn't going through all the visisitudes of life make you more understanding of people having life changing problems and needing help. If you're retired military maybe you don't get these things because you've spent your whole lives being taken care of by the government, but most people haven't. They've spent their lives working hard to pay your salaries and medical care and retirement. And yet if anyone has a different take on anything you disagree with, they become liberal loonies or some other such nonsense. Don't you realize how nasty and uninformed that makes you sound? Oh, and bye the bye, my dad was career navy, I was raised on bases all over the world and three of my kids are in the military now. Maybe you guys could take some college classes on American history. If your education ended at high school you only got the basics taught in a very patriotic way. You really need to learn more about how America developed. You may find it very different from what you suppose, and actually much more interesting.

Primer on "Blame America First" wrote on May 24, 2007 3:52 PM:This has been repeated here many times, but it seems needed again. "Flag wavers" habitually portray the US, in its history and current policies, as beyond criticism. They act as though ANY mention of evil deeds or intention by the USA is treason. So when anyone does point these things out, that person is attacked as a "blame America first" loony or traitor. This is nonsense. Liberals detest dictators, polluters, liars, corrupt politicians, and the rest wherever they may be. The recent story of what China is doing about its unregulated industries polluting the air and water are only the latest example. But we live in the US and have no say in China's policies other than to encourage our government to pressure the Chinese. But we tend to read more neutrally. The American genocide of the Indians was evil. Slavery was evil, wherever it was practiced. Violating international law to invade Iraq was wrong. Perpetrating 911 was disgusting. For telling more of the whole truth, we are called traitors, just for mentioning any American dirty laundry. These attackers are not patriots, they are just 2nd graders in their mentality that if you don't say our team is 100% Good, you must be saying it's 100% bad. I wish you guys would try to understand this simple fact.

Luna Liberal wrote on May 24, 2007 3:55 PM:A question looms for those who aren't dedicated conservatives of the variety that will tell any lie, pay any price to secure for themselves political power. The question is: How to respond to the deliberate use of lies by politicians, political operatives and the media to attain political goals, not just occasionally, but as a consistent instrument of power? We in the progressive left have not found a way to overcome lies by the power-consolidating right. Media Matters, Think Progress and the left blogs are very helpful but less than effective. New internet techniques (like YouTube, and blogs) are certainly within the grasp of the information-controllers and could happen at any time. Is it now necessary for the left to put in place (through new media institutions, acquisitions of existing media, and advertising within hostile media) a sustained truth-telling set of center-left institutions? Political lies are not new, but the wide and deep extent of reliance on mis-truth at the highest levels of governance - with impunity - is a challenge worth considering as democracy-threatening. We have truly reached the threshhold or entry-way to the house of '1984' information control. The writing is on the wall. Will it be ignored?

Ron wrote on May 24, 2007 3:56 PM:Recently published... the terrorists now have a crude, but instructive manual on how-to torture. Interestingly, from my information, it shows Muslim on Muslim techniques? I wonder how that got there? I thought we were the bad guys? Guess not.

Blame America First, PS wrote on May 24, 2007 3:56 PM:The conversation here about torture is a great example. If anyone criticizes the US for torturing people, the 2nd graders who blog here read that as: these people don't care about our enemies torturing us! Since some Americans are tortured, why shouldn't we torture them back? No. Torture is evil. It's evil when Al Qaeda does it, it's evil when Nazis do it, and it's evil when the US does it. When you leave 2nd grade, eventually you develop principles rather than just taking sides. It's called "maturing".

To Hugh, wrote on May 24, 2007 3:57 PM:You do not know what Democrats are thinking, you know what you want to think. There are liberal, moderate and progressive Democrats that want the border closed, illegals deported and no amnesty. There are some Democrats who want the millions of illegals to stay here, as there are Republicans who want the illegals to stay here. Facts: George Bush has supported open borders for all of his Presidency, along with many of his neocon base. The illegal alien invasion has escalated dramatically under George Bush.

Joseph wrote on May 24, 2007 3:58 PM:Hey Ron, Why don't you stop the ridiculous strawman posts about what liberals think. You have made it painfully obvious that you don't have a clue about what liberals think or believe.

Just when we thought things couldn't get any worse! wrote on May 24, 2007 4:00 PM:From the AP, QUOTE: LAS VEGAS (AP) -- The Osmonds will reunite this summer for a TV special celebrating a half-century in the entertainment business. ENDQUOTE Did someone ask for the definition of "torture"?

Mainstream? wrote on May 24, 2007 4:04 PM:Several bloggers today have mentioned the American mainstream, how the mainstream is ok on torture, how the mainstream is miles to the right of the Red Cross, etc. I think maybe the mainstream is not what you assume it to be. It was already mentioned that Gore got more votes than Bush, and that Americans' opinion of the war and of Bush are at an extreme low. Now, another poll, QUOTE from the NY Times: Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demand, taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll ENDQUOTE You know, when you're saying that everyone in the world but you and your pals is outside the mainstream, you lose a lot of credibility...and a smart person might wonder if it wasn't he himself that was out of whack...

A New Vision wrote on May 24, 2007 4:04 PM:We need a way to see new things, new possibilities, when the harsh realities of life seem so intractable. In a world where violence rages everywhere from Baghdad to Moore County, we need a Prince of Peace who hugs children and heals lepers. In a world where those with money and influence make the laws, subvert justice, and destroy the environment, we need a young expectant mother to stand up and say God’s will is something better. In a world where hatred and bigotry still fuel attacks on people because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation, we need the voices of prophets of every shape and size declaring that all people are created in the image of God. The most dangerous thing for people of faith is when we start believing that things cannot change, things will always be like they are now, and we surrender to that inevitability. The great, hilarious, absurd message of the Bible is that the world does shift and our lives can be different not when we get enough money or power, but when we decide to participate in the great comedic play God is putting on. Do you need a new nation to be born? God calls on the oldest couple in the room. Do you need a spokesman to lead the people out of slavery? God appoints Moses, the one guy who can’t talk so good. Do you need a message about hope and peace and especially how to love each other? God sends a little baby born in a manger to a couple of nobodies. Do you need someone to end segregation and finally get civil rights on the books? God sends a black Baptist preacher named King that no one has heard of before. Do you need the world to get the truth about AIDS instead of the lies being told by preachers and politicians? God sends a young boy named Ryan White who changes hearts and opens eyes. Over and over again God chooses the foolish things, the improbable things, even the hilarious things of this world to remind us that nothing is as permanent as it seems. Can we get that?

Why? wrote on May 24, 2007 4:04 PM:If we have twelve million illegal aliens here in our Country do we have a farm labor shortage?

An update on an old joke... wrote on May 24, 2007 4:11 PM:George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, the Pope, and a teenager are riding in an airplane. The pilot runs to the back of the plane, shouts that the engines have quit and the plane is going down, and that there are only four parachutes for the five passengers. Bush Sr. and Clinton both jump up, state that they are the former leaders of the most powerful nation on earth, and therefore, they both take a parachute and jump. George W. Bush then stands, exclaims that he is the smartest man in the world and should therefore have one of the parachutes, and then he jumps. The Pope turns to the teenager and says that he has lived a long life and is ready to meet God, so the teenager should take the final parachute. The teen said: “Don’t worry, Padre, the smartest man on earth just jumped out of here with my backpack on.”

Jules wrote on May 24, 2007 4:11 PM:I suppose it is hard for you war mongers to define torture, once again your excuse is "well they do it". I wonder what kind of tortures you would be willing to expose your children or grandchildren to waterboarding, broken bones, sexual torture?. And dont give me your idiotic posts such as the golden nugget of wisdom from I feel Bad. What you should feel bad about is your ignorant post. An I will try not to lump you conservative republicans under one ugly umbrella if you would use your heads and quit saying all liberals think alike, it is again utter nonsense that could have been written by 12 year olds. Try and grow up a bit can you.

also, wrote on May 24, 2007 4:16 PM:Jimmy Carter has been maligned by the neocons for some time now. Perhaps they are trying to make Bush look better. Impossible! The fact is Carter negotiated for a long time to get the hostages freed. He succeeded, but the Republicans wanted them set free on the day Reagan became President, and he took credit for it.

I feel bad wrote on May 24, 2007 4:34 PM:My neighbor knows I’m a goose-stepping follower of Bush. When I screamed at him he acted as if I were going to cut his tongue out. Why is he so afraid of me? What is it about us right wingers that scares the crap out of liberals?

to Ron at 1:25 wrote on May 24, 2007 4:39 PM:that entire blog is a complete and total straw argument and you know. Why do you continue with these lies? If you have a point please try to support it with facts or opinion, but not outright lies. A day without a latte is no more torture to those on the left then a day of reading your spew on this page. You try to paint the Left as weak and wimpy. I can assure you that there is nothing weak about being a pacifist. It takes incredible strength. Something you are clearly lacking, yet try to hide with machismo and false bravado. Blogs like yours at 1:25 make everything else you say irrelevant.

I admire Gore, too .. wrote on May 24, 2007 4:49 PM:… and if Gore runs, my whole family says they will vote for him. I will never forget how Al Gore made emergency arrangements to evacuate 270 Charity Hospital patients from New Orleans up to Tennessee, paying over $100,000 out of his own pocket to secure two aircraft right after Hurricane Katrina. FEMA was helpless. So was George W. Bush. Nobody in our government would help these desperate patients. But Al Gore was the good Samaritan with compassion who could make happen what our government could not and would not. He is a great and compassionate man.

Mike America wrote on May 24, 2007 4:49 PM:Now here's a classic example of Liberal obfuscation: I've been arguing for quite some time now, that the 14th amendment should be repealed or re-amended; as I did in my blog today at 8:17 am. Then along comes liberal Rambo @ 12:37 pm, (he served, ya know) implying I advocate ignoring or disobeying the constitution. The answer to your pompous arogant question sir is, yes I did serve; and I'll still and always will defend the sovereignty of my country.

to A New Vision wrote on May 24, 2007 4:52 PM:Yeah I get it. You actually believe in a god who killed a young boy, Ryan White, so you could feel better about yourself. I wonder how Ryan's folks feel about that. The bible is a dead old book full of magic and superstition. We've had 2000 years of biblical leadership....so how's that working out? I think we need to discard that old way of thinking. Lose the jesus stuff and come up with something that works. Just imagine how wonderful a world could be without religion. Not without god, if thats what you want, but with out religion. gosh there'd be almost nothing to fight over. You know, my bibles right your queran is wrong. You can't get into heaven without jesus. What silly superstition. So here's to a day when mankind finally frees himself from the shackels of ignorance and creates a new day without religion.

to I feel bad wrote on May 24, 2007 4:57 PM:Us liberals aren't afraid of you. but your poor next door neighbor must be. i guess if you scream at people, describe yourself as "goose-stepping" people are going to avoid you 'cause your nuts. And frankly from all the venom on this blog from right wingers I think you guys are just bullies, tough acting but not really courageous. Maybe even a little cowardly.

Reardon wrote on May 24, 2007 5:07 PM:I do not know how the historians would rank Bush Jr. today -- and neither do you. If you have a more recent scoring system conducted by any responsible group -- quote it. Meanwhile, my guess is that however Bush would rank, five years ago or today, there is no little to make me believe that Jimmy Carter's position would be any better than it was then. Carter was the only President whose Military Aide requested transfer from the White House. That speaks volumes to me.was.

Logan Hts Grandpa wrote on May 24, 2007 5:11 PM:Vista Granny ... I agree 100% ... especially with regard to GW ... who cares about those rich folks, as long as a 23" ocean level rise will move us poor people 25' closer to having beach front property in 100 years.

Huzzah!! wrote on May 24, 2007 5:17 PM:To Blame America First, PS at 3:56pm. Thank you.

Alf wrote on May 24, 2007 5:22 PM:Jules, it's nice to see that you still want to spar. Thanks for the 4:11 post. Still a Libertarian, Alf.

Al Gore wrote on May 24, 2007 5:29 PM:Al Gore is a great guy with a great mind but I'd hate to see him run for president. In fact I feel sorry for anyone who has to take over this Bush mess. After all the books and articles and blogs I've read, I've seen nothing that remotely sounds like a solution in Iraq. And how do you begin to undo the damage Bush has done to the science community. Whoever gets the job next, dem. or rep. it's gonna' be ugly.

To Mike America wrote on May 24, 2007 5:34 PM:I find it very telling that you "always will defend the sovereignty of my country". It would have been better had you said "always will defend my Constitution." The fact is, the United States is not the sovereign ruler of the world and you need to get over yourself.

To I Feel Bad wrote on May 24, 2007 6:03 PM:That wasn't torture, that was just rude. Apparently your mother didn't teach you any better.

Good Stuff wrote on May 24, 2007 6:57 PM:Any John Edwards supporters on this blog? If his pathetic 2 worlds view of America weren't the most hypocritical slogan I have ever heard, blogger "Frank" really shines the spotlight on the Grand Trial Lawyer. Love it.

To Reardon wrote on May 24, 2007 7:04 PM:"I do not know how the historians would rank Bush Jr. today -- and neither do you." This speaks volumes to me. If you don't know, what was the point of your post? By the way, Bush's #19 fell under the classification of Average in that same poll, two years ago. It is easy to guess how the historians would rank him today. Far below Jimmy Carter. It's all relative, my dear Reardon.

To Good Stuff wrote on May 24, 2007 7:07 PM:John Edwards is too pretty for my taste.

to My Father wrote on May 24, 2007 7:08 PM:God Bless your father. But if you think everthing was hunky-dory in 1945 & 1946, and Nazi terrorists had all the rights they do today, you are mistaken. Hard core Nazis and their sympathizers were often dragged out of their homes put up against a tree and shot between the eyes. What would the modern day Int'l Red Cross have to say about that? My guess, it'd be too much for them to take and they would have suggested the Allied Forces cave in, leave Berlin, and allow Hitler's successor to resume his horror. But that was then, and we knew then how to get things done. Today? Nah. It's all about feeling good right now.

The Decider, wrote on May 24, 2007 7:13 PM:Has now decided to start scaring people with the deaths of their Children if they don't support his illegal, bloody war. Of course he has already caused misery to the parents of many in the military. George Bush uses the fear tactic to get what he wants. Perhaps he should send his family members to Iraq to find out the stress other families feel. And Bush should move to some of our neighborhoods to live with the problem of illegal aliens.

And, wrote on May 24, 2007 7:16 PM:Bush is the "can't do" President. He just stated that we can't deport the illegal aliens here. We have had some very good can-do Presidents in the past, who have hurtled much higher obstacles than this one. Bush just can't do anything right.

to "To Reardon" 7:04pm wrote on May 24, 2007 7:39 PM:I think it's great that you feel that there is really no way to rank Bush Jr. Any fair analysis would and should wait a full 2-3 years after he left office. But that's not what we see, is it? Bloggers salivating over a low approval rating remind me of a Red Sox baseball announcer (liberals) watching the Yankees (Bush) vs. Cubs in the World Series, game 7. Cubs are up, 7-3 in the 7th inning of game 7. The Red Sox announcer cannot contain his excitement and already has made his game-end evaluations. Yet the proper time to evaluate the game and the series is AFTER all is said and done. Maybe it has something to do with our collective state of mind coupled with modern technology (internet, radio, etc.). We want answers NOW. We don't have PATIENCE. What is really sad is that today, actual historians are making calls a full 1-2 years before the man has even left office. There is something very wrong with that, and I seriously doubt anything like this has ever occurred in this respect. When Clinton left office, I thought his adultery would be a permanent mark on his Presidency. I'm sure many others did, too. But I / we were wrong. Clinton's economic successes trumped all. Even though Carter lost in a landslide in 1980, many felt uneasy about switching gears from a liberal to a conservative; changes needed to be made, but no one can deny that the nation still very much liked Carter as a person and a human being. Usually, we just never know.

What scares us? wrote on May 24, 2007 7:42 PM:Ignorance, religious fanatics going to war because God told them too. Seeing things from the conservative right wing, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, and Jerry Falwell before he passed on. Not listening to other voices. Getting us into this hell in Iraq. Letting millions of illegal aliens invade our Country. There is much more, but I am sure you get the point. Our Country is so much worse since "the Decider" took over.

Reardon wrote on May 24, 2007 7:54 PM:"I Say Tomayto, You Say Tomahto" -- but we are both left with the written record as published by the Wall Street Journal. It says GWB is ranked 19, Carter 34. Unless you have a more recent, or more authoritative source, the record stands as to who is the "worst" of the 40 Presidents in question. Neither ranks as high as James K. Polk...want to start a discussion of why that is so?

to The Decider wrote on May 24, 2007 8:01 PM:Sorry, kiddo. Your liberal Dem pals in Congress have the absolute & undeniable power to stop this liberation of Iraq. They have the power to stop it. NOW! They chose not to. They chose to continue the fight. Do you understand that? Do you? Your sorry claims of "illegal, bloody war" ring hollow and any change of course is in the hands of the House. Quit whining and press Pelosi to stop this. Bush is the CIC, and the House approves the funds (with Senate approval). Your "illegal, bloody, fear, scare" talking points are old and stale. Talk to the Dems in the House if you want this thing to end. Don't hold your breath. They sold and got your votes in 2006. And they will sell you again in 2008.

Alf to "to My Father " wrote on May 24, 2007 8:21 PM:Major Payne "ain't got nothin' on you". It's all about getting soldiers out of where they never belonged in the first place. It's all about stopping the lies. It's all about stopping GWB from completing his task of destroying the economy of the U.S.A. and any relationships with any previous allies who will still talk to us. In 4 and change years, GWB has alienated more of the world than ANY president in the history of the United Stated of America, bar none. I guess someone like you would derive some perverse pride in that. Son, you are one sick puppy. Still an unashamed, unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

to Alf wrote on May 24, 2007 8:49 PM:Alf, where to start. Most would argue, circa 1944, that we never belonged in Europe in the first place. Japan attacked us, not Germany. Sorry, guy. Lies were fed to my grandfather as well in the 40's. sorry, guy. Destroying the economy? Liberals like you, Alf, (not libertarians - you need to look in the mirror my friend) have been saying that for years. Paul Krugman feeds you your talking points and you eat them up. Yet, the economy is still rollin' and rollin' along! When are we going to collapse, Alf? Tell us, please! GWB has alienated more of the world than any president in the history of the US, bar none? Hmmmm...ever hear of Washington, A. Johnson, Polk, T. Roosevelt, W. Wilson, Hoover, Coolidge, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan? Oh yes, all were in the same position as W. But no need for you to go there. I suppose some would call me a "sick puppy". But, hey, at least I know my history!

Mike America wrote on May 24, 2007 9:29 PM:WOW..........any more liberals (5:34 pm)want to straighten me out. Hey do you guys ever have any solutions, or just cowardly vapid criticisms. Incidently; I also took an oath to defend my country from enemies, foreign and domestic; I consider Liberals "enemies"; I take that oath very seriously

too late, Mike A wrote on May 24, 2007 10:33 PM:A few days ago you made a courageous confession: that you don't write here to debate, only to insult liberals. That was a simple truth that your readers already knew and were glad to hear you admit. But with that admission, you took yourself out of the game. Why would anyone read your insults now? Why would anyone take you seriously? Enjoy your retirement.

Alf wrote on May 25, 2007 8:16 AM:Where to start, "to Alf"? It seem like your history is a bit off, the United States was "invited" to help not one but two countries, England and France, deal with Germany's invasion directed by another madman - Hitler. Although GWB has not invaded as many countries as Hitler, yet, I mean GWB has invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and it looks like he is trying to justify invading Iran. One of the reasons that Hitler was stopped was that he spread his forces out too far, one of the same reasons that GWB is failing and will ultimately fail, bringing down America as we know it. When will this occur or reach critical mass, you know what that is, is no later than 2012. Why 2012 even with GWB having been out of office for 4 years? GWB and his windmill-tilting will have us either completely broke or on the hairy edge and The Great Boom, boomers retiring expecting the government to honor their contract: at least pay back some of the Social Insecurity that has been being stolen from them for 45 years. BUT WAIT, Congress has been raiding the SS trust fund, GWB's folly of a war has caused almost unheard of deficits, and these ingrates want what has been promised to them. That, my friend or nemisis or sparring partner, is the point, 2012 (the first wave of baby boomers start retiring in 2011), at which we go, having been pushed, irrevocably over the edge into complete economic collapse. If you posit that SS is a government handout - think again, I've had money stolen from my paycheck to pay into this "trust fund" since 1971 and I'll be lucky if I recover a dime of that money. If you are already retired, see what happens. I'll bet that you, as I have been, were smart enough to put as much as you could into ANY other form of retirement savings. Some weren't so smart or lucky. You can call me any descriptor you desire, the only question is whether you are accurate. BUT I am still an unabashed Libertarian, Alf.

Not the Decider, wrote on May 25, 2007 10:02 AM:The Democrats are not the "Decider", that would be Bush. He promised to veto the bill to fund the troops if he didn't get his way. The Dem's don't have enough votes from the Rep's to override the veto. September will be different.

Fran wrote on May 25, 2007 10:21 AM:I also like Al Gore. Al Gore and Joe Biden would be great candidates. They are both smarter than the average bear. They make George Bush look more like Alfred E Newman than ever before.

Pinky wrote on May 26, 2007 3:58 AM:You bring up a verrrrry interesting number. I have seen the number 2012 referring to a immense change in human history in several other places but it stunned me to see you bring it up here in a new but aligned context. Google 2012 and the Mayan Calendar if you are interested. Who says numbers aren't magick? Glad to see you back, Alf.

"Kiddo" wrote on May 26, 2007 6:47 PM:My Liberal friends do NOT have absolute power to stop this illegal. tragic war that Bush started. I wish they had the power to stop our young from being slaughtered. Better brush up your knowledge of how the three branches of Government work. September will be different

To Ron wrote on May 28, 2007 2:46 AM:Glad to see you ditto Lyons. You have been using his stuff for a long time.