[banned commenter, content deleted]

The details of the Surgeon General silencing are bewildering. The crux of the story is that Bush administration was unwilling to accept the scientific conclusion that junk food makes children fatter.

Their refusals to accept the scientific consensus on global warming or evolution or stem cell research are all bad enough. But refusing to accept that soda and candy bars make people fatter? Sweet Jesus.

I bet I know who the next Surgeon General nominee will be -- that one dentist who recommends sugary gum over the sugarfree kind.

Actually, the junk science on junk food was one of Steiger's previous actions. Still, proof that the man's yet another dishonest hack.

al, whoever you are, you must have absolutely nothing else to do today. get a life...

Gonzales is the most incompetent AG we have ever had. He must be impeached, simply for the self-respect of the Congress. Plus, it would REALLY piss off the right-wing nazis like Al.

A report that doesn't include information on its recent activities is incomplete, and therefore should not be released until it's done.

Are you kidding? You're saying that a report written by the Surgeon General of the United States didn't accurately reflect what the country was doing? And, furthermore, that a political hack, whose area of expertise is Latin American history, had a better sense of American medical policies than the Surgeon General?

Dear Lord, conservatives are insane.

Ah, Kevin.

Ho hum. the surgeonn general serves at the pleasure of the President. That means the President can reserve the rites to insert whatever words he wants into his reports. The reports eminate from the EXECUTIVE branch. Thus, the President, as HEAD of the EXECUTIVE branch, can determine how documents flow out of his branch.

Short Egbert: Facts be damned, I love this dictatorship!

To the sane readers: Please don't feed the trolls.

>"And there's still 541 days to go..."

I suspect the powers behind the throne have other plans... this is only the begining of a thousand year reich for the New American Empire!

See the PNAC manifesto for more details.

The "big" data mining secret?

Through the “total awareness� data mining program, they probably did profiling on everyone. The profiles include a scale from 1-50. Those with high numbers get passed on for additional searches and possible FBI surveillance. So everyone probably has a risk number based on associations, financial information, behaviors and interests, and content of calls and emails. It’s safe to assume that critics of the government receive higher numbers

Wonder what Obama thinks of Gonzales, assuming Obama knows who Gonzales is, of course.

Can we feed trolls... to the bears?

Don't be surprised when Bush reluctantly accepts AG Gonzales' resignation during the upcoming Congressional recess. It's a no brainer for Bush and Rove - It gets Gonzales off the front pages, sneaks a new AG past confirmation hearings that might air more dirty laundry, and is yet another opportunity to diss Congress.

Clearly, our president's mental state is so fragile he cannot bear anyone having any competence or expertise in any field getting any kind of press. All efforts in his mal-administration must center on, and revolve around, a cult-like sense of "W Glory". Without it, W could not claim the title of Decider Commander Guy that he so desperately wants acknowledged and respected by all. So desperately.

So. Desperately.

platpypus,

How can Bush sneak a new AG past confirmation hearings? You mean a recess appointment of the attorney general? That might be a good idea, even if highly unusual, if Bush nominates someone of great repute who is willing to accept it as a recess appointment. Would it get the appointee through the end of Bush's term?

I think the main reason Bush sticks with Gonzales is political, in the sense that Bush does not want to feed the democratic beast, offering up Gonzales for sacrifice and then finding the next day that democrats want to use the replacement process to score more poitical points. I think he is probably correct about it as a matter of political strategy. No one much cares who the AG is outside of Washington and, at some point, dems stop gaining any political advantage (and perhaps even start losing points politically) from picking on a nice Hispanic fellow like Gonzales. (There is a decent argument to be made that dems show particular vigor in attacking minority republicans and, even if not true, it will start to look that way.)

ps. Nice to see Kevin honestly call himself a "liberal" and not a "progressive."

"Gonzales is the most incompetent AG we have ever had"

Wonder how this is going to play out in the 08 elections. Hispanic Bashing?????

Actually though he doesn't impress me much either. I'll just wait and see which democrats get indicted by the new US Attorneys .

Well, Hatch didn't have any problem defending Gonzales on This Week (and expressing disappointment at Republicans who dared to criticize the AG). But I guess he couldn't make it to Fox News Sunday as well.

I love how wingnuts think that the minority status of Republican incompetents insulate them from responsibility.

That's GOP affirmative action for you.

Al,

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You boot-licking toadie.

Go suck somewhere else.

"America is the most influential nation in the world, including the best healthcare system and most foreign aid to places like Africa. A report that doesn't include information on its recent activities is incomplete, and therefore should not be released until it's done."

"Ho hum. the surgeonn general serves at the pleasure of the President. That means the President can reserve the rites to insert whatever words he wants into his reports. The reports eminate from the EXECUTIVE branch. Thus, the President, as HEAD of the EXECUTIVE branch, can determine how documents flow out of his branch."

The great irony here is that government, the consolidation of authority, is inherently conservative, but the reaction to "politically correct" conservative liberalism created the liberal conservatism of libertarianism. Thus comments like the above, advocating authoritarianism, from a movement that prides itself in personal freedom.

scrambled egbert,

Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You boot-licking toadie.

Go suck somewhere else.

There's literally no one left who will come to Alberto Gonzales's defense

Really, already we see the WP has a story up now asking Gonzales to re-state his mis-statements - the GOP will always give this administration a second chance. They do one thing in front of the TV news cameras but entirely another in their official capacity. They protect Bush.

On Sunday, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on Leahy's committee, made clear that he believed the Justice Department would be better off without Gonzales. But he said it would be premature to begin a perjury investigation until the committee could find out the facts.

Maybe by the time 2008 rolls around, the GOP might exist only in the realm of third party status - Nader might have more members in the Green party that the GOP has voters in Repug Party. If Libertarian Pat Buchanan ran in 2008 - he might actually pickup most the GOP vote this time around.

The GOP has done so much for Bush, irregardless of their voters back home that I don't see how they come out of this tailspin noise dive without completely flip-floping on every single issue. Bush is the icon of conservtism, which is the icon of crooked, lawlessness, lying, incompetence - nice party values if you're a loser.

The GOP = Grand old Potty-chair - somebody please, please flush. And then wash your hands thoroughly anti-bacterial soap.

brian: "No one much cares who the AG is outside of Washington and, at some point, dems stop gaining any political advantage (and perhaps even start losing points politically) from picking on a nice Hispanic fellow like Gonzalez."

Um, no one except those who actually work in federal courts throughout the country & rely on things like, oh, competence & justice:

"Justice Department Morale a Concern, Says Former Deputy AG"

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/story?id=3137501

From another article:

"The controversy has drained morale from US Attorney offices around the country. And now, legal experts and former Justice Department officials say, it is casting a shadow over the integrity of the Department and its corps of career prosecutors in court."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-usattys18jun18,0,5805474.story?coll=la-home-center

"Former U.S. Attorneys Describe Disgust Over Gonzales, Predict Mass Exodus from DOJ"

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/05/hbc-90000041

"Prosecutors Assail Gonzalez During Meeting"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/washington/29gonzales.html?ex=1332820800&en=e8b24789c592b096&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Nice Hispanic fellow, indeed. I suppose it should come as no surprise that you're really all about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Dipshit.

brian: if Bush nominates someone of great repute

why start now?

you think rats jump ON sinking ships?

[IP search reveals comment by a banned contributor.]

Hispanic Bashing????

Oooh, would the Hispanic communty touch Gonzales with a ten foot pole? I bet not. Even the GOP isn't that stupid, but they are running on empty these days. Fresh out of sell-able lies.

Fuck you, Al. You don't have an opposing viewpoint, you have a belief system you cling to in spite of reality.

So again, Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You boot-licking toadie.

You're being very rude.

I get that way when idiotic fuckwits like you excuse the inexcusable.

The sad thing is that this kind of story doesn't even outrage me anymore. It just seems like baseline performance from the Bush administration. And there's still 541 days to go.....

Well, the one thing that seems to go unremarked about this story and the many others along the same lines: given that they're relentlessly infusing Bush promoting propaganda into every bit of executive branch output at every level, it's um, not exactly working all that well for 'em is it? I mean in terms of their approval ratings, they're not getting a very good return on the investment of time and effort. I suppose you could say the ratings would be even worse if they weren't doing this stuff, but I think the real lesson is that it basically just doesn't fool anyone. Maybe they have to do all this table pounding to keep themselves believing, much like 28%-ers like Al and Eggblurt here.

Oooh, would the Hispanic communty touch Gonzales with a ten foot pole? I bet not.

¿Como se dice "Uncle Tom" en español?

brian: if Bush nominates someone of great repute

why start now?

you think rats jump ON sinking ships?
Posted by: mr. irony on July 29, 2007 at 4:51 PM
~~~~~~~

Good point. I think this is something that has been overlooked. Who would want to tarnish their career by joining up with these fools? IOW, the competence level can only go down because only idiots would sign up with them now. Of course, there may be an exception to Gates, but he is there doing damage control for others-not the captain of the ship.

Doc: "Who would want to tarnish their career by joining up with these fools?"

Speaking of fools, I may be one for believing so, but I think that there are committed, law & order conservatives who are interested in seeing that the legal machinery which puts honest-to-goodness bad guys behind bars works -- Republicans not unlike Gates, men & women who want to bring the party back from the margins before it's too late. There just isn't any place for them in this administration -- save for one in Defense.

Feel free to pile on with the Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, virgin birth comments. I think I have them coming.

The Hispanic community is running away from the Republicans over the immigration issue, in which the GOP has treated Mexican Americans as second-class citizens at best, and an evil brown horde at worst.

Does anyone really think they'd come running back to the GOP because the mean ol' Democrats are picking on Gonzalez?

My take on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is that he seems to think it's all very funny.

Because Bush supports Gonzales it very much like Gonzales is sitting back and saying, "Bushie says *uck you all congress members (- thus voters)". Gonzale doesn't even try to make a half-wit legal defense argument - perhaps because he is complete incapable of doing so - so why is he the US AG?

I mean, just who is Gonzales making fun of here anyways?? Because making fun our congress-members conservative or liberal, is the exact same as making fun of American voters. Gonzale is all about incompetence - and I can only imagine that Cheney must be telling Gonzales - "Can't you just spend a hour writing something down to say besides 'I can't recall' all the time, so that at least you look a bit like you're qualified for the position that you hold?"

It's not helping Bush any that Gonzales is so damn lazy. You would think that Bush would be a little upset by that inability to roll-up-your-sleeves attitude coming from the members of his administration. Heck of a job Gonzales, since simply saying "yes sir" doesn't require legal professionalism - but complete lazyness.

Stange how hard work was one of those conservative values that is completely absent from todays GOP values, or lack thereof.

Al: "Blue Girl-- ... You're being very rude."

Al, like most people here, Blue Girl is looking for thoughtful discourse.

However, because you so grievously took offense, I'd like to sincerely apologize for her obvious and inexplicble unwillingness to accept half-assed, pseudo-intellectual tripe at face value with neither question nor hesitation -- especially when such still-steaming piles of bullshit have been so thoughtfully and generously apportioned by a concerned right-wing garden trowel like yourself.

It was orwellian and absurd that the NewYorkTimes simply accepted anonymous administration sources and stated in its reporting that Gonzales did not lie in his testimony this past week.
In a non-orwellian world, the newspaper would have said that despite the testimony contradicting Gonzales by the head of the FBI, officials from the administration were hard pressed to convince citizens that the attorney general did not lie when testifying before the Senate Committee.
That is more likely the truth.
Water carriers.

You know what? Al doesn't respond, but American Hawk can't resist...I bring out the worst in that idiot. I think we have a handle-spoof in our midst!

You're a liberal blogger?

egbert: "Blue Girl seems to be losing some of that Misouri composure. Take a chill pill and chill it. Your making a fool of yourselve.|-;"

"Boobies, boobies, boobies. Nothin' but boobies. Who needs 'em?" -- Patty Duke (as Neely O'Hara), Valley of the Dolls (1967)

Indeed, egbert. Who needs 'em?

brian: I think the main reason Bush sticks with Gonzales is political...

Who scores political points if Gonzales is replaced may be a consideration, but a very small one.

The primary reason Bush sticks with Gonzales is because Bush requires an AG who will subsume their duty to the country in favor of the administration's agenda, and an AG who is willing to cover sins committed in pursuit of that agenda.

That is and will continue to be--sans impeachment--the primary criteria for determining whether Gonzales stays or goes.

mhr: "You liberals had better get ready- after Bush come eight years of Giuliani. If you heard the pathetic Russell Feingold's answers to Wallace's questions, even liberals must wonder whether Americans are really as concerned about the civil liberties of muslim terrorists as ..."

Yeah -- and Charleton Heston's not done yet either, because he's been cryogenically frozen, and when we find a cure for Alzheimer's we're gonna unfreeze him, and then you liberals better watch out, because Chuck's just gotta take one good look around, and then he's gonna be really pissed off ...

Wow--I was researching how orwellian this administration is, and came across this gem:
2004 or 1984 by Richard Scheroeder @ http://www.nzarh.org.nz/journal/2004v77n2win.pdf

Not only has George Bush created a permanent state of war--we know that--and the Big Brother monitoring--we know that.

But, wow--this observation about Iraq blew my mind:

"Meanwhile the citizens of Baghdad live in an almost perfect 1984 nightmare landscape, with random rocket propelled grenade explosions (rocket bombs in the novel 1984), irregular electric and water supplies, and a palpable sense of death and decay as well-dressed politicians living in protected and privileged quarters tell them they are now free to live much better lives than they did a few years ago..."

War is Peace, so orwellian.
Hope you'll read this pdf

"...eight years of giulani..."

right, giulani, he's the family values candidate who thinks iraq is somebody else's problem, right? I can't wait.

I can't put my finger on it, but every time I see a picture of Giuliani laughing, the image of the Crypt-keeper (Tales of the Crypt) enters my head.

Is is just me?

I know you all are having fun over here calling names, but you really ought to take a look at "Sean Hannity Sings 'Stand By Your Man' to George Bush." On this day when Fox Noise couldn't find a loyal Bushie to defend Albert Gonzales it will probably make egbert laugh (though we won't know.) It is totally off the wall.

egbert: "Ho hum. the surgeonn general serves at the pleasure of the President."

And you can try to pleasure the president any time you want to, kneepad boy. Of course, the secret service will drop you like a hot rock if ever get within 100 yards of the White House, but hey, that's our Georgie, ain't it?

Corpus Juris--excellent. Well worth reviewing.
I left a comment.
You guys have a classy blog over there.

Veeery interesting.

So when do we vote and how many times?

I had the same initial reaction as Kevin to the news about the suppression of the surgeon general's report. However, Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy makes what appears to be a good point about the nature of the report itself:

"The draft report at issue here was not a purely scientific or medical document — not even close. The report, The Surgeon's General Call to Action on Global Health, is as much a policy document as anything else, complete with specific policy recommendations on a range of issues. Among other things, the report calls for ratification of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and the acceptance of certain international health regulations. Whether or not these are sensible health policy prescriptions or not, they reflect normative value judgments, not scientific judgments. My point here is not to defend the Bush Administration, nor is it to suggest that the report should have been withheld. Rather it is that many cases of "science politicization" are in fact policy disputes."

His point is that critics should attack "on policy grounds — for opposing particular public health measures and refusing to support others — rather than for allegedly censoring scientific expertise." Fair enough - read the report and attack away!

That's utter BS from Volokh, per usual. The WH could have stripped the policy suggestions, and released the report with just the science. They didn't, because the "sensible" policy prescriptions follow logically from the science.

Lots of heat, and very little light per usual from the moonbattery of fever swamp twitterers. Take a few chill pills and swill them down with Southern Comfort to ease the pain of always being litigious investigative Sherlocks without much sleuthing ability.

Gonzalez is an obvious second-rater, but schlubs like Shumer and Leahy and Specter don't make him look bad. But they do make fools of themselves despite the fact that AGAG is a very dim bulb.

As I noted above, they themselves are dimwits just like AGAG.

the daveinboca trollbot needs a tuning

disputo: "the daveinboca trollbot needs a tuning"

Well, you know how hard it is for Republicans to get good help nowadays ...

davidinboca: Gonzalez is an obvious second-rater

if anyone knows 2nd rate...

its a bush defender...

The upside of this issue is that when Dems' are busy undermining Gonzales, they have less time to undermine the war effort. It's going well. According to Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution, Iraq is now a A War We Just Might Win

On Sunday, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the top Republican on Leahy's committee, made clear that he believed the Justice Department would be better off without Gonzales. But he said it would be premature to begin a perjury investigation until the committee could find out the facts.

Ah, so Specter's back to the role of criticizing the administration just enough to lend credence to his substantive defense of the Administration. In effect: "I think something is wrong here," he says, "but we can't investigate that until we have more facts."

Of course, the whole purpose of an investigation, as Specter ought to be aware, is to determine the facts; the whole argument is B.S. designed to try to paint any Democratic steps toward accountability as extremism even while acknowledging the general disgust for the Attorney-General. "Yeah, its bad, but we're the Congress, we're not supposed to do anything, that would be going overboard."

Yeah, the war effort's going brilliantly, ex-liberal. More Iraqis dying now than under Saddam, the U.S. spiraling into massive debt, support for the U.S. around the world at historic lows, and an inevitable civil war when we pull out, whether that's next week or in 5 years - which will likely result in a government dominated by Islamic theology as opposed to Saddam's brutal but sectarian government.

Gonzalez is a moron, everyone knows it including most Republicans, and if you are blind enough to dispute it at this point, your credibility is shot and you might as well post somewhere where someone might listen to nonsensical ramblings.

Crabshaw, did you read that New York Times article? The authors, O'Hanlon and Pollack, are Democrats. Pollack worked on the National Security Advisor's staff during the Clinton administration. Although they originally supported the invasion of Iraq, they have since turned sharply critical of the execution of the war.

When Democratic, foreign policy experts who have been sharply critical of the war praise Gen. Petraeus and report that things are now turning around, attention should be paid. Bush's eventual success in Iraq will be a part of history. Gonzales won't.

The upside of this issue is that when Dems' are busy undermining Gonzales, they have less time to undermine the war effort.

You really do get a sick thrill out of posting the most insulting, disingenuous arguments you can think of, don't you, "ex-liberal"?

Gonzales undermines himself with his perjury. Bush undermines the war effort with his incompetence. And the Republican Party undermines itself with its members' craven tolerance of both.

Unfortunately for you and your neocon ilk, "ex-liberal," Republicans don't need Democrats to fail -- just to pop their bubble of delusion and to blame their failures on.

Crabshaw wrote: Gonzalez is a moron, everyone knows it including most Republicans, and if you are blind enough to dispute it at this point, your credibility is shot

I must disagree, Crabshaw. "ex-liberal"'s credibility -- along with that of "liberal hawks" O'Hanlon and Pollack, I might add -- was shot a long time ago. It's fadcinating to see how desperately "ex-liberal" clings to fantasies of "Bush's eventual success in Iraq," though.

and you might as well post somewhere where someone might listen to nonsensical ramblings.

He already does.

Oh, and "ex-liberal"? If Gonzales becomes the first sitting Cabinet official to be impeached, he will indeed place yet another stain on Bush's historical record of mendacity, incompetence, corruption, and failure. It's a pleasure to see that neocons like you were dumb enough to hitch their wagon to someone who's failed at everything he's ever attempted. It's just a shame that Bush is ruining the country along with your ambitions.

Ex-lib: The authors, O'Hanlon and Pollack, are Democrats...

Nice try Mr. Mendacity. Here's a link for your perusal Ex-lib STILL full o'shit

As Glenn Greenwald points out..."They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster."

The authors, O'Hanlon and Pollack, are Democrats. Pollack worked on the National Security Advisor's staff during the Clinton administration. Although they originally supported the invasion of Iraq, they have since turned sharply critical of the execution of the war.

Pollack is neoconservative -- period. Trying to frame him as a "Democrat" is laughable. He is the boob notorious for writing the article entitled "Saddam's Bombs: We Will Find Them."

Obviously Ken Pollack has zero credibility.

The article you linked to is just as much a joke as Pollack's previous work. It is entirely anecdotal. It can be boiled down to the following: "Everyone is happier in Iraq and all the bad things are going away."

Of course it doesn't provide any metrics to prove this subjective claim.

And apparently you didn't even bother to read to page two of the article, where it says the situation is still "grave" and that we can't stay there forever and that, in fact -- the whole thing still just might fall apart.

Bush's eventual success in Iraq will be a part of history.

Iraq has already been a tremendous failure, there is no reversing that, and the history books - if objective - will reflect that. A war prosecuted for ulterior motives based on false evidence with no occupation plan that destabilized a country and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands (so far) and the wounding and displacement of millions more.

If Iraq ever manages to turn around it will be despite Bush, not because of him, and all the blood and carnage and attacks from future jihadis created by his needless invasion will have been on his hands.

Nice try Mr. Mendacity. Here's a link for your perusal ... As Glenn Greenwald points out..."They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster."

"ex-liberal" pushing the party line from Powerline, Malkin and Hewitt. Imagine that.

.... Bush's eventual success in Iraq will be a part of history...ex-lax at 11:18 AM

But Bush's place in history is secured; it's solidly secured: the worst president in American history. Bush is clearly the most corrupt, the most incompetent, and the most evil of the Imperial Presidents. The deaths of hundreds of thousands have contributed to the blood on the hands of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and their allies, and the cries of the tortured will follow these evil people down through the corridors of history.

the cries of the tortured will follow these evil people down through the corridors of history

But to "ex-liberal" and his neocon ilk, it'll sound like cheering.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Mike and Gregory, do you really care about torture? Or are you looking for an excuse to bash President Bush and the United States?

You really do take a sick pleasure in posting the most insulting, bad-faith arguments you can think of, don't you, "ex-liberal"?

Even then, it's interesting to see your tacit admission that the subject of torture -- which you vociferously and dishonestly applauded in the pages of the New York Times letters column -- is a subject on which to bash Bush.

Many things have gone wrong with our Iraq invasion, but it has has the good effect of greatly reducing the amount of torture within Iraq.

Well, first of all, that's just bullshit; many of the bodies of the victims of secarian violence -- which is a result of Bush's incompetent invasion -- show signs of torture. Second of all, as Abu Ghraib demonstrated, some of the torture that goes on there was the result of US policy, where it wasn't before, third, if there's less torture in Iraq it's possibly because we're "rendering" the victims to outside the country, as the Bush Administration has already done elsewhere, and fourth, if there's less torture in Iraq -- a premise I don't at all grant, mind you -- there's the fact that there's an uincrease in the troture committed by the United States elsewhere in the world.

You, with your sick, loathsome neocon allegiances, applaud Bush's actions, even while you hide behind morally coawardly words like "harsh interrogation methods -- the same words used, unsuccessfully, by the Nazis to defend their own torturne in the name of an unpopular occupation.

And even then, they eschewed waterboarding, which you defend even here -- a practice universally acknowledged and prosecuted as torture until you and your slimy neocon fellow travelers came along to advocated it, however dishonestly.

As an American I take pride in the role played by the US in ending Saddam's hideous torture.

That dog won't hunt, "ex-liberal." As a neocon, you take pride in the policy of torture adopted by the Bush Administration, and none of your pious words can conceal the fact when your own words condemn you.

Alberto Gonzalez has successfully completed his role as the Designated Deflector, and can exit stage (far) right whenever and however he pleases. He won't be fired, and may not even resign. Impeachment? Should anyone care whether he's impeached and convicted? He's already over. Impeachment would only extend his term as Deflector for a few months. Good deal for the administration. Who cares?

Waiting in the wings is the next Desinated Deflector, General Petraeus, who stands ready to replace Gonzalez and take center stage at least until October. Perhaps longer, depending on how exercised we get about HIS shortcomings in the deceptions department.

Meanwhile, while we are preoccupied with him, the thieves will continue to plunder the treasury.

Oldest scam in history. Happens everywhere: one guy bumps into you, gets your attention with apologiies (lies), while the other picks your pocket.

Our nation's pocket is being picked because we're responding to deflectors. That's why the Bush administration pays no attention. Its back is covered, and they can shovel the money to their friends, Haliburton, and all its counterparts, without intervention.

Such a deal. How easy can it be?

Am I missing something here? Have I finally become a conspiracy theorist? Maybe I'm rendered insane by what I see happening?

Please, reality check requested! (Thanks just the same, Al, Norman, and the rest of the Troll Society. I said: "reality").

But Kevin, Drudge is reporting that Dick Cheney says Gonzo is truthful: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/30/politics/main3112785.shtml

Dave: However, Jonathan Adler at The Volokh Conspiracy makes what appears to be a good point about the nature of the report itself . . .

This is disingenuous.

Adler, as usual, creates a strawman to knock down.

What the White House objected to was not the policy objectives, but the fact that the report didn't incorporate enough partisan backslapping promoting the Bush administration, something that would have diluted the message and placed partisan objectives ahead of both scientific and policy judgments.

Thus, it wasn't a scientific dispute or a policy dispute, it was a dispute about the primary message to be conveyed by the document: scientific and policy judgments versus partisan self-promotion.

ex-liberal: When Democratic, foreign policy experts who have been sharply critical of the war praise Gen. Petraeus and report that things are now turning around, attention should be paid.

Yeah, it has nothing to do with self-affirmation of their original support for the war and the desire to be proven right.

Call us when a Democrat critical of the war from the outset changes their mind and finds Petraeus's actions are "working" in any sense remotely connected with the original mission's goals.