Crux

Gonzalez is the consigliore of the Bush crime family -- as long as he's alive and Bush is in office, there's no way he's going anywhere unless forcibly removed by Congress. Bet on that.

All on the list who I recognize made singularly innovative contributions to guitar music. Regardless of how difficult or easy to emulate their songs, the creations credited were arguably ingenious.

BE STRONG PARIS! ...OLY LOVES YOU PARIS!!

The strategic difference is not in how preemption or prevention were applied in the rationale for warfare three years ago, but in how it applies to an apology for being so oblivious three years ago. It's easier to explain one's advocacy for the invasion of Iraq when one claims prevention was the goal of the invasion rather than preemption. After all, everybody but the most deluded now understands there was nothing to preempt. After the Gulf War, the later aerial bombardments ordered by Clinton, and the subsequent eradication of arms technology by U.N. inspectors, Iraq essentially had no military power left, and certainly no capacity or will to threaten the United States. Despite this, the Bush administration went forward with plans to invade Iraq, and the explicitly stated rationale was that of preemption. First thing was to pull out the inspectors, and that was followed by a sweeping campaign of Neocon propaganda that nearly saturated the mainstream media in America. Even though former arms inspectors and CIA agents from the field did come forward to report that Iraq presented no threat, these reports were effectively (and falsely) discredited to an extent adequate for winning Congressional and popular support for the war -- and preemption continued to be the principle rationale given for the invasion. Today, now that popular support and even Congressional support has eroded, the fact that preemption was a disingenuously stated intention now offends most Americans. But there apparently remain a substantial number who continue to seek, albeit retroactively, some justification for the invasion -- and present occupation -- of Iraq. And that justification is the goal of prevention. As Matt argues, there may be little practical difference between the two. Preempt or prevent, either way we are where we are, and either way it's a bad and unnecessary situation. But I will suggest there is a fundamental difference in attitude, for preemption requires a clear and present danger, whereas prevention, to be justified as a rationale for war, requires no more than paranoia. After all, who knows? Even you might be a threat someday, who knows? Therefore, in the name of prevention, what we must do is kill them all. Let God sort out the bad guys.

Wow. Spray has one of its very own full-blown nut jobs -- one of the very few who still thinks Bush is cool. Last night I was reading the righties, and even a lot of those folks say Bush is ruining the country. On WorldDailyNet, for example, I read an article that pointed to a decree made by Bush last month. As stated in the complaint from the right-wing, the new presidential directive (which was issued on May 9th and is published on the website of the United States White House) asserts the president can and will, under provisions of the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts, legally assume complete dictatorial power over the government and exert full command authority over the private sector any time he wants to -- needless to say, it's not only liberals who find such a decree objectionable, just as it's not only liberals who can see Bush has been a disaster for America and the world. But our own KK continues as though possessed. Delusional to the end, veritably foaming at the mouth like a shaman over-dosed on peyote, soma, or what have you, KK is inscrutable in his devotion to anything Neocon, albeit masquerading under the banner of the Republicans. Predictably, some will view KK's fanatacism as a dubious distinction at best, and one of no real value to Spray. But I say if that doesn't impress you, then consider this: Stock picks and weather reports aside, you can always trust KK to be KK. Just wind him up, and let him go. (Demonstrations available on request.)

Clinton was the best Republican president we've had since Eisenhower.

Roadie in the rain and racing a deadline down the sidewalk east of the tracks between 4th Ave and the Seahawk's stadium: Where the first gravel parking adjoins at the bottom of the hill, my front wheel found the crack and stopped like a dart hitting the bullseye in an Irish pub. Despite my best post-flight efforts to pull myself together, the best I could do was walk my broken bones up the hill to Harborview.

Not safe for work.

To be sure, I don't usually follow the politics in Venezuela. When I do, I find the political troubles in my own country are of much greater concern. Your assertion, Fairweather, that I've ever called for my government to kill protesters in the streets is bizarre. To say the least, your reckless posturing detracts from your credibility as a reporter on Venezuela. Frankly, I don't think you've got much to report on, but simply prefer to bare your fangs at the distant Venezuelan upstart rather than feel the bite of disgrace delivered by your own president. Anyway, the stands that I've taken in this forum on the issues related to equal opportunity laws for political access to air time in our own country are just that -- positions based on my understanding of the law, not on my personal ideology. That said, the laws are not what they used to be! From 1927 to 1997, federal rules required broadcasters to give equal opportunity for airtime to qualified political interests. Also, in 2005, the Senate introduced a bill to put statutory teeth into the annual spending order that forbids government manipulation of the news. Despite unanimous initial support, I've learned that law (S. 226 of the 109th) did not pass. Consequently, any laws I thought applied to "fairness" in broadcasting any time in this century are actually laws that did not exist -- therefore, I must agree there is no legal basis for incarceration of anybody, ABC executives included, for any of the events that you now refer to. To be clear, and contrary to my previous understanding that was based on the 70 years of administrative law that was tossed out by Clinton in 1997, I understand it is perfectly legal for any of the broadcast executives you've mentioned to give any millions of dollars in air time and production support to one political party, while denying access to another. More specifically, it was apparently also legal for the presidency to receive $47 million in propaganda favors from a broadcaster (ABC/Disney) in exchange for an unprecedented extension of a priceless copyright held by the broadcaster -- such as appears to have occurred with none other than that for Mickey Mouse in exchange for said benign docudrama. All in all, it's an impressive bit of political work, and I don't see any case for imprisonment of anybody -- even though my "ideology" most assuredly is unaltered. No crime committed, no time to be served -- it's that simple. But I favor a return to the equal opportunity rules that were in place until 1997, and believe the practices I've attributed to the Bush administration and others are unethical and damaging to our democracy.

You may be right. I understand the station that lost its license in Venezuela also was a station that advocated the unlawful overthrow of the government on a daily basis. If a station did that here, I'd probably support similar actions here. But wait! If a station did that here, there would be no waiting for its broadcast license to expire, it would be shut down immediately, don't you think?

Fairywhiner, chill out. I've never advocated censorship, and your statements to the contrary are hysterical distortions of the truth at best. I have, on the other hand, advocated the silence of an attacking pit bull by means of shoving my arm down its throat. The later advocacy, of course, might be another that a rabid dog such as yourself will contort personally, and so your intensified snarl and jerking at the chain will be expected. By the way, your boy Bushie just keeps looking better all the time. Just two days ago his former commander in the field, General Ricardo Sanchez, went on record saying the best we can salvage now is a stalemate that might stave off military defeat. As a history buff you will recall when those same words were spoken by the German high command. How ironic this end for people like you, and tragic for Americans all.

Post deleted by Crux

Then there is always the possibility that willful participation in a conspiracy to kidnap and torture is a punishable offense. Go figure.

Actually, I never heard the term "emo" before running across this thread. (I don't watch television, and so maybe that's why. For that matter, it was only a couple days ago that I figured out that American Idol is a terrorist organization.) --Have Chrome and Krypto, will travel.

Nazi is as Nazi does.

That's just plain bullshit and you know it. That sort of talk began back in the McCarthy era. He knows it. He just can't help himself. Obsessive-compulsive disorder?

There has never been a free market, and never a market without rules. Ever. You must always pay, one way or the other, and participation is, was, and always will be subject to rules. The key to the survival of a democracy is for its members to exercise effective and appropriate control over what those rules will be.

Say goodnight Tommy.

Yes, yes, dear Watson, but where did the cougar get his nails done?

mediatised drip, it's a new sensation

Only if he gets his nails done while keeping a runner captive for dinner.

Problem solved: When they get their nails done, cougars should have beacons implanted so we can always know where they are.

Before we wrote with copy and paste, we used scissors and glue. Hard to say which is more obscene, the ode, the checker, or the goo.

Mealy mouth pseudo-intellectual drip, drip, drip

pffft