The cruise missiles should begin entering Syrian airspace some time Sunday evening.

Ouch, snark. I'd suggest that you fit yourself for a tin-foil hat if I wasn't bogarting the Reynolds Wrap box for myself.

Has anybody prepared themselves for the possibility that there won't be any idictments? Believe me, I hope there are but looking at the blogs this weeks makes it sound as if the whole place is going to go up in flames. I wish people would just wait until Fitzgerald actually does something before popping the corks -- don't jinx it.

the vortex of expected blows to the Bush Administration over the next week or so may or may not fizzle. What won't is that someday, soon, the number 2000 will/should be the banner headline in most of America's newspapers. That will be a lot of men and women sent to fight and die in a war of choice by George W. Bush.

Does this mean that James Baker won't be riding to to pull Junior's googlies out of the fire?

Hey T2,

Just thought you might want to know that 2,000 casulties over a 2 year period is pretty darn small. Especially when you compare it to the fact that there have been 2 elections now in Iraq. But of course, actually helping oppressed people (instead of just talking about it) doesn't register with liberals.

BTW, did you also oppose Bill Clinton's war of choices (plural there) in Bosnia, Somalia and Kosovo. He made the right decision to help those people (Muslims no less). Now Bush does the same thing in Iraq and you can't stand it.

As far as Scowcroft goes this is nothing new. He criticized Bush 2 years ago. He's just trying to CYA from their big mistake of not finishing off Saddam when they had the chance in 1991. This will have no effect (and it wouldn't have before the election last year either).

But of course, actually helping oppressed people (instead of just talking about it) doesn't register with liberals.

So, we'll be heading to North Korea next? And Sudan? Niger? Iran? China? Will we be helping oppressed people everywhere or just where there's oil?

Now Bush does the same thing in Iraq

Bush took us to Iraq to keep us from blowing up in a mushroom cloud. Where's the nukes? Oh, yeah, THERE WERE NONE!

How does it feel to know that you were duped by a C average, rich fuck, sociopathic dry drunk? How does it feel to know that you are being laughed at, not only by the people that fooled you into voting for them, but by people you know, behind your back when you walk down the street, as well as by every person on every blog you post to? Because, you know, that's the real truth. Heh, what an idiot! When Chimpy smirks, he's smirking at you rather than me, since I was never fooled. I find that hilarious.

KIA Kosovo: 0

It's a shame that Stowcroft is such a scumbucket. Pity. Oh well, just one more nail in the coffin, and that is always appreciated.

Real Truth:

Tell a Gold Star mother to her face that 2000 dead American soldiers is pretty darn small.

Then get off your ass and get over there and put up or shut up. And if you've already served, get off your ass and go again.

At least a couple of High Fives to Steve Soto for that last comment. The mind absolutely boggles at these cheap traitors who try to minimize the significance of the loss of American lies in Dubya' fiasco.

Wow. Reading that article might be enough to distract me from refreshing my browser every ten seconds waiting on the announcement of the Fitzgerald indictments!

I wonder if this is all about giving some cover to the Republicans up for election next year. The message: it's ok to distance yourself from shrub.

Scowcroft will be nailing Condi at about the time Bush will be considering her to replace Cheney.

"I wonder if this is all about giving some cover to the Republicans up for election next year. The message: it's ok to distance yourself from shrub"

Oh, there's no doubt there'll be a lot of rethuglicans running against georgie the idiot son next year.

T2, with 1,993 American soldiers dead, that headline can be expected by the end of next week.

"Tell a Gold Star mother to her face that 2000 dead American soldiers is pretty darn small."

Steve, great response. Here is the perfect example of why we are who we are, and why they are who they are. To the Republican, it is only 2,000 dead, big deal. To the Democrat, it is the loss of a loved one, the pain of that loss, the difficulities that loss may cause a family, the mother, dad, sister, brother, aunt, uncle who will not return to the love of his family, and it is the lonely moments that we all can imagine for those who buried their loved ones.

Just thought you might want to know that 2,000 casulties over a 2 year period is pretty darn small.

Especially if you don't know any of them, and I'm sure you don't.

Quit acting like Republicans care about helping oppressed people. What a phony. That's the only line left after the rest of the rationales for war turned out not to be true.

Bush is LBJ without the good civil rights record.

not to mention the children who will never know their mom or dad.

The fucking arrogance, is what escapes me!! How can bu$h even call himself a good Christian? I hope he burns in hell or whatever he thinks it is!!!

"How does it feel to know that you were duped by a C average, rich fuck, sociopathic dry drunk?"

You liberals should know considering that is what has happened to you over and over again the last 5 years. If he's so dumb then why can't you beat him without having to criminalize conservatism or make up stories about stealing elections. You're pathetic.

Now about the war casulties. It is absolutely shameful (although predictable) for you to accuse me of minimizing the soldiers sacrifice. Yeah, you're so concerned about them that you are prediciting (hoping) that the number reaches 2,000 next weeek so you can use those dead soldiers as an tool to further your argument against the war in Iraq. You've been doing it since day one.

If you're so concerned about the soldiers sacrifice being honored, then why haven't any of you who have posted a response to me mentioned the RESULTS of that sacrifice: A dictator removed, a termination of mass killings (including women and children), 2 elections (including the latest approval of a constitution) etc.

But of course you can't do that because hating Bush is a greater priority than really supporting the soldiers. Saying you support the soldiers but not the war is like saying you support the New England Patriots but being against football. There is no logic in it.

Yes, I'm wishing and hopeing that BushCo has a really bad week ahead, and another, and another.

Camp David agenda:
1. Save our ass!
2. Sacrifice the non-executive people: bye bye Karl and Scooter, (and maybe Card too - he's overworked!!) Bring in Ed Gillespie as savior.
3. Bomb Syria and make plans for bombing Iran for the following week (see item 1)

Coffee break discussion:
- complete the list of those Dems to be swift-boated
- complete the list of those Repubs to be horse-headed
- discuss the merits of martial law

having to criminalize conservatism

No, the conservatives stand accused of criminal acts based on their own choices.

the RESULTS of that sacrifice:

Results? Iraq is now a base for al Qaeida and other forms of Islamic radicalism. A three way civil war is also likely, some scorces beleive the early stages of it have already began.

Saying you support the soldiers but not the war is like saying you support the New England Patriots but being against football. There is no logic in it.

How arrogant can you be. I haven't brought this up before, but I have a relative in Iraq, I will not disclose which branch he's in, but he's a careerist with over 20 years in uniform. BTW, his personal opinion of Bush is closer to mine than it is yours. You want to call him unpatroitic? I wish you had the chance to do that to his face, you wouldn't have the courage. Supporting the troops does not require agreeing with the policies of whatever commander in cheif they have to deal with at a given time.

it's nice to know, real truth, that even now it remains possible to remain in total denial, to spout completely moronic piffle and be proud of yourself for it.

Let's start with your most disgusting remark: we accuse you of not caring about the dead (and, for that matter, the wounded) because you told us you don't care. at least try to be a consistent propaganda robot.

now, what you call clinton's war of choice is not, in the slightest, the same as bush's war of choice, on two grounds: first, actual genocide was going on. second, he didn't go it alone (and do not attempt to tell us about the cow, for crissake).

as for saddam, it had been many years since he was involved in genocidal conduct - there hasn't been a single discovery of a recent mass grave in iraq. if there were recent mass killings, why would they need to have taken this long to begin to prosecute him on a much older matter?

finally, apparently you don't seem to understand: helping oppressed people is a worthy objective in life. it is not a worthy national security objective for the united states. For the blood and treasure, we could have done a tremendous amount, for instance, to alleviate the crisis of AIDS in Africa, helping many times more people than we are helping in iraq.

Out of a planet of billions of people, you seem to think that it was our task to expend our efforts on a country of 25M. Conservatives used to point out how insane that was, back when conservatives were sane themselves: we are not the world's policemen, they would note, and they were right.

and you are wrong.

and an ass.

Hey real truth...point me to some right wing blogs where I can troll and leave comments.

Rlp: I'll say this for you: your consistent. Ever since I started posting on this blog you've been predicting a civil war in Iraq. It's not going to happen! I don't know why you think it is. That's what the terrorists have been trying to incite for 2 years now to no avail. The fact that the Sunni's voted in such large numbers (irregardless of how they voted) as opposed to engaging in terrorism demonstrates that the civil war is less likely. And I remind you that there were concessions to the Sunni's in the last few days before the vote. If the majority really didn't care about the Sunni's that would not have happened.

Now about the soldiers (again). First of all, I have NEVER accused ANYONE of being unpatriotic in my posts to this blog. You really need to stop repeating that liberal mantra. It isn't true and I fail to see how you could have ascertained that from my comments. I also did not say that all soldiers are conservative or agreed with Bush.

Now as for Iraq being a base for Al-Qaeda. There were already al-qaeda elements in Iraq before we went in. If you would do some honest research on this you would find that this is true. Stephen Hayes has a great book about it.

Onto Howard:

Your memory is very faulty. Bill Clinton NEVER went to the UN to get approval for military action. And if we did have help in those countries it was about as small as you claim we had in Iraq so we did go it alone in Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo.

Your logic really escapes me on Saddam. It just wasn't mass graves. He was continuing to have people tortured, raped and killed up until the time we went in.

Your last comment was amusing. If you're not sure your other arguments are working, insult the person.

To "The Real Truth" or whoever else wants to respond: What the hell ever happened on the Iraqi Constitution election? The silence is deafening!

real truth, my sweet: did i say clinton went to the UN? can't you even read, you blithering ass? i aaid he didn't go it alone; he went in with NATO. is this so hard for you to understand?

and "mass killings" does not mean he was "torturing up to the end." not in this time-space continuum.

how pathetic, especially for a clown who insults the american dead.

I wonder how a boy named Scooter will makeout in jail.

In case you missed it, Reagan's NSA Chief Gen. William Odom (Ret.) has some things to say that don't coincide with Boy George's diplomacy, er, war. I believe on David Corn's site.

Is the Boy George administration morphing into a Black Hole?

The fact that the Sunni's voted in such large numbers

How do you know that they really voted in large numbers? Were you there or did Fox news tell you. I've heard that the turnout was high and that it was low. I've heard that the vote was honest and that it was rigged. You don't know anymore than I do how real the reported numbers are.

The fact that the Sunni's voted in such large numbers (irregardless of how they voted) as opposed to engaging in terrorism demonstrates that the civil war is less likely.

I can't blame you for having hopeful speculation. Have you ever read of the voting turnout for the U.S. in 1860? In the carolinas it was extermely high. A high voter turnout does not guarentee that the results of the vote will not lead to a civil war.

And I remind you that there were concessions to the Sunni's in the last few days before the vote. If the majority really didn't care about the Sunni's that would not have happened.

Politicans negotiate with each other? Who'd a thunk it? Of course groups are going to position themselves in ways that they percieve advantegious, that's been going on in all cultures for centuries, it doesn't guarentee success.

First of all, I have NEVER accused ANYONE of being unpatriotic in my posts to this blog. You really need to stop repeating that liberal mantra. It isn't true and I fail to see how you could have ascertained that from my comments.

Well, let's look at your own words:

Saying you support the soldiers but not the war is like saying you support the New England Patriots but being against football.

What the hell do you call that? Your practically calling the majority of Americans that now oppose the war traitors!

Now as for Iraq being a base for Al-Qaeda. There were already al-qaeda elements in Iraq before we went in. If you would do some honest research on this you would find that this is true. Stephen Hayes has a great book about it.

Hayes is a hack. You can't have it both ways, Hussein was a dictator of a moslem country. Al qaeida is an Islamist group. Their long term interests are counter to each other. A dictator doesn't want large numbers of rivals for power within his borders. There weren't large al Qaeida camps in Iraq during Husseins's rule-it would have been against his interest to have them there. We know that al Qaeida is there big time now. As for honest research, you need better scorces, your arguements are too easy to tear apart.