DISQUS

A quibble or two: Obama's timeline has never been absolute. He's tempered it with words like "responsible" withdrawal, etc. So al-Malaki's and Rice's proposals are completely in sync with Obama's. McCain doesn't have a single hook to hang is neo-Con imperialism on. Also, how in the world do you get away with continuing to call that retreat in Sedona a "ranch?" Last I saw, it's only about 37 acres, no? That's a nice sized ranchette in the subdivisions around here. Looks more like an upscale resort. How many head of cattle is he running on it? Or sheep? Or chickens? Or kangaroos? Or whatever. I'll bet they hire more back-up pilots and limousine drivers than fence riders or bronc busters. There's a difference between elite and obnoxiously loaded. I'll take elite any day.

McCain's private pilot -- No, not that one. The white one -- who was waiting nearby, offered the listeners at the outskirts of the small crowd of reporters an additional insight into the candidate's committment to America's economic recovery. He revealed that just that morning his boss had mentioned that when he became president he would challenge the Chinese premier to a game of craps ("an all-nighter, if necessary"). "House odds, hell," the feisty ex-POW exclaimed, "I can't wait to rattle some bones on that Oval Office rug. My friend," he reportedly told the pilot, "Then the budget will be back on track. I won't have to ask Cindy for a raise in my allowance, either." The pilot, who declined to be identified by name, then asked rhetorically, "Of course, you already knew he was a POW, didn't you?"

Finally Pelosi is learning: just don't allow things to come up for a vote. She could have and should have used the same strategy on a number of issues, especially the so-called FISA compromise. Now that she's found the fortitude to do it, it is our duty, those of us who see the lie that is the "drill here, drill now" campaign, to support her by telling her and, certainly, our congresspeople: Keep up the pressure. Don't back down. We'll support you in November. We've got your backs.

Please, Leser, How long is this whining going to continue? Don't you realize, continuing your obnoxiously die-hard resentment for losing Hilary's (poorly executed) campaign is one of the reasons (though minor) that Obama cannot "close" this race? Move on, dot, please. Your enduring sense of entitlement makes me gag and turns off independents. You think I was happy to lose Kucinich, then Edwards? You'd better close in yourself and do everything you can to ensure Obama finishes the race well ahead of McBush. It's your America, too, not just the Clintons' America. (But, PS, thanks for calling me young ((at 67)) and inexperienced ((I've worked more elections than many people have voted in.)) Now, Sridhar, please remember that this thing "closes" in November. This horse race mentality you evidence is for media pundits and neophytes only. He "closed" on Hilary, didn't he? Remember the handwringing about his abilities in the primary? That's your gig. We voters are analyzing, listening, watching and, well, waiting for McBush to implode. And you'll still be wondering: Can Obama do it? We'll get used to it, because, you'll still be pulling this false-tension punditmanure well after he wins.

Sorry for the transposed letters and misspelling in the hurried post above. This whole CIAC got me a bit "energized."

There is so much disturbing about this article, including the reporting. Where to begin?



"...analysts who access a dozen data bases...": exactly which data bases? Do the maintainers of these data have the authority to share them? Did they have legal authority to gather them? (Disregarding the ultimate question posed later in the article: where does the CIAC get its authority?)



"...if a report is not deemed to merit further inspection...": Deemed by whom? By what level of personnel?



"...CIAC workers make a log of the event.": Which workers? What are their qualifications? Are they securitized? Are ehey diligent? Why is this log not maintained automatically by software?



"...sharing information with other information gatherers...": Hey, I'm an information gatherer; please put me on the list to receive this information. Or have they already sold it to my insurance carrier?



"It's acautlly the federal government that's encouraging and directing them now." "CIAC falls under the command of the state patrol." "...policy decisions are made by the board." Hmm. Which of these statements is true? Any of them? As German says, "There are very ambiguous lines of authority. It's unclear who's in charge." What an understatement. Obviously, it's not the U.S. Constitution governing this bunch.



Oh, and this, most disturbingly, in re. Civil Liberties: " 'We don't think we have to give up the privileges [!] that come with being a law abniding citizen in order to be safe'," says Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa." Privileges????!!!! Those aren't privileges in the Constitution. They're rights !!!! And this from someone in the ACLU. Oh well, he's been listening to the fascists too long.



Now, as for who's in charge: Gov. Ritter, et al.; Mayor Hickenlooper, et al.; Rep. Diana Degette, et al.; Sen. Knighthorse Salazar, et al. Contact them. Holler. Loud. Who know's: you may become an event deemed to merit further inspection. Go for it.

Thank you Mr. Troutt:



Sadness engulfed me when a friend showed me his copy of the New Yorker. What did I think of it? I told him it's simply dangerous. And stupid. And unnecessary. Oh, come on, it's just satire. Yes. I "got it." That's not the point. There are millions of us who won't. For them it will be validation of their gradually cohering discomfort at all the sneering half-truths, untruths, and questionable truths (CNN-type "Is it true that...?" truths) that is clouding their ability to actually see whatever real truths underly who the Obamas truly are. It ties all their snickering maybes into one neat package. See?! I thought so! And there's the media stamp of approval. It must be true.



I'm sorry, New Yorker, but I've seen too many proud parents plop their 7-year-olds behind the wheel of their off-the-road RV and let them head out alone down the trail. Proud? For God's sake, think of the possible tragedy. Some think it's macho to speed down the highway with their dog -- unsecured -- staggering to keep his footing in the back of a pick-up truck. I've witnessed the absolute disintegration of an animal when it hits the pavement at 65 miles an hour. Macho is not the word I'd use for its owner. Oh, and Hillary's protestation that she was staying in the primary race because, well, you know what happened to Bobby Kennedy? Just being a responsible back-up. Please. There are just some things that, if your are going to do or say them at all, you'd better be damned careful. Think about it twice and do it right. The New Yorker didn't. Proud? Macho? Responsible? It was, as Jon Stuart screamed, just an effing cartoon! But it was obviously not well done. These are treacherous times. And the New Yorker's mis-communication will feed the treachery by nourishing the wrong "truths." Sadly, dangerously, unnecessarily.