But, again, I have to ask:

WTF is he doing in the republican party? :o)

. . . . We’re going to get hit when our pants are around our ankles and we’re going to get hurt badly. Much more badly than we need to be if we start thinking instead of going off half cocked without thinking.

The way Bushco has done ever since 9/11.

I’m going to tie in my reply and incorporate some of what you posted above about Ron Robb’s analysis . . which was an interesting read and thanks for that.

Robb’s theory(s) are quite the com studies analysis lens applied to terror/insurgency battles.

And, as Robb and others, and you above say, Bin Laden has the wherewithal to BUILD to something, and do it . . and hitting vulnerable spots in our defensive ‘armor’ is simply common sense, yes.

If you look at how Russia fell, they fell economically as a result of overextension . . .

We the USA are VERY close to that, but not in our DIRECT WAR MONEY economy!

Where then?

Forgot where I read it recently, google will reveal if anyone cares . . .

But I understand we are about to default and toss away on some few TRILLIONS of dollors worth of hedge funds.

And the impact of THAT was foretold as being PROPHETIC of MAJOR damage to our economy.

So, there IS something that ties all the binds we are in that you point at Stormcrow, and Ron Robb points . . . ultimately, we will fall due to a house of cards scam that concentrates all the wealth into the hands of 1%.

And when if falls, like Mark Knofler so sweetly sings, even the 1% won’t have squat except for:

“Paraguay, Paraguay.”

You guys are fun in here . . . most all of you! Thanks for the brain exercises, I always come away from this place with something new.

Larue, maybe not; on the “it’s already over” thing. If Edwards wins in Iowa, how can anyone crown Clinton? She’ll have to win and win big, in N.H. and S.C., to have any validity to the “unity” shreiks that we’ll start hearing from her campaign. As I’ve been saying, if she wins the nomination, she HAS to win it quickly. The longer the nomination contests continue, the worse it is for her. We all know that Iraq is NOT going to get better, and as it worsens, all of her supporting statements for the invasion and occupation, and especially, her refusal to say that her vote to authorize was a mistake, are going to go from the dimensions of a baby crow for her to have to eat, to one the size of a pterodactyl.

The fact that she has discovered her inner anti-war self ONLY as it became obvious that the american voters were beginning to gag on the bushCo koolaid, is an indication of two things, to me:

That she doesn’t have a lot of character, on these political issues, and that she’s just not very bright, politically.

As Iraq worsens, John Edwards is going to have carry HIS authorization vote around like a moldy hotdog, and regularly take a bite of it, at practically every campaign appearance. He did it at Georgetown, and he’s going to have to do it some more, too. That’s fair. But his vision for the country seems to me to be coherent and VERY progressive.

I fault him for not coming out 100% in favor of gay marriage, since he’s still “recognizing the relationships” blah-blah, etc., but we can work on him, on that. The main thing is, the man is passionate about economic democracy, and the role that government should play in promoting it.

NO laissez-faire bullshit about the “marketplace” running rampant and utterly controlling the economy. We’ve all seen where that leads. We HAVE to have government regulation and oversight on these corporate wheelings and dealings. Way too much economic power has been concentrated in a few cartels, by uncontrolled mergers, etc. I think John Edwards will put a “Whoa!” on that, instanter.

I think there is a quiet consensus developing that the next president is going to be a democrat. And the democrat who scares corporate america and the MSM the least, is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Of the three democrats who are the frontrunners, the democrat who scares corporate america and the MSM the most, is John Edwards. If we want real, substantial, change in the country, toward a genuinely progressive political culture, that’s what we have to deal with.

There’s not a thing in your post I disagree with.
I hope Edwards and Kuch pull together at the end. It would be a GLORIOUS start on this Republic’s rebuilding efforts!!! *G*

Al Gore as Energy Czar, as long as he DON’T push his nuke buddies for more reactors and stays focused on development of NEW and reusable/sustainable sources of energy.

Al’s just TOO much of a big biz fat kat for me to toss my entire hat at . . . . it’s taken me a LONG time to get here, but, I’m at Edwards/Kuch all the way, with Gore involved.

I’m not sure I want Hil OR Bill in any of the cabinet postings . . . Senator Whitehouse though, along with a few others, gets to head up the prosecution of the evil one’s!!! *G*

Impeachment is the only option.

Tanbark @ 229

Reid, thanks. I don’t know Paul’s positions off the top of my head. Did he vote “no” on the authorization vote, in 2002?
If so, that took courage, and I will say so.

But, if he did THAT, wtf is he doing in the GOP? And where does he stand on “choice” for women? And on putting public funds into private schools, where the kids can be taught that a zillion years of fossil record is a communist plot?

And on global warming? And most immediately, was he publicly against escalating the war, with the splurge? (I think he gets a “yes” on that one…if I remember right.)

And what about the republican tax plan that bush so generously laid on the top 3 or 4% of americans?

I’m sorry, but after all that’s happened in the past 6 and a half years, and, in fact, in my lifetime, for me to support a republican candidate for preznit, he would have to climb up on the dais at the GOP convention, drop trou, and hang a shit on Ronald Reagan’s photograph. It aint gonna happen.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/

Reid, thanks. I don’t know Paul’s positions off the top of my head. Did he vote “no” on the authorization vote, in 2002?
If so, that took courage, and I will say so.

But, if he did THAT, wtf is he doing in the GOP? And where does he stand on “choice” for women? And on putting public funds into private schools, where the kids can be taught that a zillion years of fossil record is a communist plot?

And on global warming? And most immediately, was he publicly against escalating the war, with the splurge? (I think he gets a “yes” on that one…if I remember right.)

And what about the republican tax plan that bush so generously laid on the top 3 or 4% of americans?

I’m sorry, but after all that’s happened in the past 6 and a half years, and, in fact, in my lifetime, for me to support a republican candidate for preznit, he would have to climb up on the dais at the GOP convention, drop trou, and hang a shit on Ronald Reagan’s photograph. It aint gonna happen.

Brief Overview of Congressman Paul’s Record:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress

“No, the purpose of 9/11 was to provoke us into an ill-considered, violent overreaction that would enrage and radicalize the Muslim community, and Bush obliged beyond bin Laden’s bloodiest dreams.”

Maybe it was not Bin Ladens dream. Maybe it was PNAC or something of the sort who neederd another Pearl Harbor. I agree with you Eli whomever it was it was to provoke an over reaction on many levels.

Thank you for your article.

The fact that she has discovered her inner anti-war self ONLY as it became obvious that the american voters were beginning to gag on the bushCo koolaid, is an indication of two things, to me:

That she doesn’t have a lot of character, on these political issues, and that she’s just not very bright, politically.

As Iraq worsens, John Edwards is going to have carry HIS authorization vote around like a moldy hotdog, and regularly take a bite of it, at practically every campaign appearance. He did it at Georgetown, and he’s going to have to do it some more, too. That’s fair. But his vision for the country seems to me to be coherent and VERY progressive.

I fault him for not coming out 100% in favor of gay marriage, since he’s still “recognizing the relationships” blah-blah, etc., but we can work on him, on that. The main thing is, the man is passionate about economic democracy, and the role that government should play in promoting it.

NO laissez-faire bullshit about the “marketplace” running rampant and utterly controlling the economy. We’ve all seen where that leads. We HAVE to have government regulation and oversight on these corporate wheelings and dealings. Way too much economic power has been concentrated in a few cartels, by uncontrolled mergers, etc. I think John Edwards will put a “Whoa!” on that, instanter.

I think there is a quiet consensus developing that the next president is going to be a democrat. And the democrat who scares corporate america and the MSM the least, is Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Of the three democrats who are the frontrunners, the democrat who scares corporate america and the MSM the most, is John Edwards. If we want real, substantial, change in the country, toward a genuinely progressive political culture, that’s what we have to deal with.