The idea that Al Qaeda can target Addington now that he's been on TV is just plain stupid and dishonest. Anyone who can use Google can find innumerable pictures of him. Of course, the idea that Al Qaeda couldn't be sure whether the U.S. waterboards prisoners unless Addington had confirmed it is equally stupid and dishonest. Delahunt was making a pointed comment about Addington's (and his boss's) penchant for behind-the-scenes skullduggery, not a death threat.
By the way, Yoo teaches at Berkeley, not Stanford.Comment Posted By Mike On 28.06.2008 @ 00:22
Rick you have not answered Ian's last paragraph where he clearly states the truth of the record of the last six years.How,on reading what he says can you justify voting republican?Comment Posted By mike On 24.01.2008 @ 18:21
The 1950's a liberal time? I don't think so.The Eisenhower years were a time of stultifying conservatism especially for women and blacks.The years 1960-63 in contrast were a golden age of enthusiasm,prosperity where America stood tall in pride in the country and its President.Nixon and the Republicans destroyed all that Kennedy had built up.Comment Posted By mike On 23.01.2008 @ 13:43
For the love of all that's holy, grow up. McCain ain't perfect--and I plan on voting against him in the primaries--but he's still a damn sight better than Shrillary, Obambi, or Silky Pony.
Try to remember the usual relationship between the perfect and the good.Comment Posted By Mike On 20.01.2008 @ 11:12
If not for Reagan, not only would the Soviet Union still exist, but Afganistan, and Eastern Eurpoe would still be under it's control (and since their empire was based on expansion, it is reasonable to believe they would have continued to expand in the face of perceived Western weakness). For if there were no Reagan, there would probably have not been a Thatcher.
As far as optimism, one of Reagan's signature lines was referring to America as "the shining city on the hill." If that is not optimistic, I don't know what is.Comment Posted By Mike On 17.01.2008 @ 09:58
I would not remain in a party that abandoned its support for the right to life. However, Huckabee is cynically presenting a false choice. Our most successful candidates have been those who were both fiscally and socially conservative. We can't have one without the other and expect to win.
Usually it's pro-choice candidates who threaten our party with this false choice. This time, it's the other way around with much higher stakes. Neither approach is acceptable and I think our party's voters know it. Huck won't win. Go Fred!Comment Posted By Mike On 13.01.2008 @ 18:46
I've contributed twice to Fred over the last 2 weeks. He is the only Republican I can support 100%. All of the others (except Paul) are pro-imigration or have other problems (anti-gun, pro-abortion, tax & spend) that turn me against them. If Fred loses, I'll begin to feel like Zell Miller, I didn't leave my party, it left me.Comment Posted By Mike On 10.01.2008 @ 17:33
Shallowest criteria in the last 35 years? Really? So what did you think of Peggy Noonan writing last week that John Edwards's pre-show hairdo time disqualified him from the presidency?Comment Posted By Mike On 30.12.2007 @ 21:03
I need a pic of the new bus with his Hands Down added.Comment Posted By Mike On 28.12.2007 @ 22:12
It needs to be a hotlink the the jpg. Thanks
You must be a terrific writer. I'm sitting here crying over the death of a cat that I couldn't care less about...I don't even like cats. I'm truly sorry for your loss.Comment Posted By Mike On 24.12.2007 @ 12:27