"You can't support the troops but be against the war," he said.

First, dissent is allowed in this nation. In fact, dissent led to the creation of this nation.

Secondly, do you really think the enemy is "emboldened" by war critics? If so, you really don't understand the way the Islamic mindset works.

Of course dissent is allowed in this nation. With the right to dissent comes the responsibility to think clearly about matters of war and peace--and to know that what one says, has consequences. I am afraid this is lost on the Cindy Sheehans of the world.

And yes, I do really think the enemy is "emboldened" by war critics. The war critics want us to set a time table to withdrawal from Iraq--if not leave immediately. What incentive is there for the Iraqi insurgency to stop, if they think we are going to leave on a date certain--or if they know that continued attacks (both on our troops and the fledging Iraqi democracy) will hasten that departure? Especially since the insurgency surely knows that if we leave, they have a far better chance of returning a radical, hateful regime (i.e. themselves) to power in Iraq?

"In fact, dissent led to the creation of this nation." Ah, yes, the fantasy of the absolute purity of "dissent". Tell me, in the "dissent" that created the nation, do you include the dissent of those who favoured remaining under British rule? You know those folks - the ones who were called traitors and lost their property when they fled north to Canada. Up here, we call them the United Empire Loyalists. Funny that when the American experiment was at its newest and freshest, people didn't think that carefully preserving a nest of determined underminers and dissidents was such a high principle. They thought that dangerous people ought to get out. And what about the "dissent" of the 1860s? Was that another one of those invaluable ingredients that "built" the country, or was it a poison that nearly killed the patient?

Oh yes, by all means let's stay the course. Iraq is going so swimmingly well. Only 3800 Iraqis killed last month alone. Ha, what a joke. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Bushco have been so inept and incompetent in Iraq that it is criminal. The worst war plan of any military campaign in American history. We have made Iran the most powerful player in the Middle East. Neocons, you're doing a hell of a job!

What's next, criticizing the President = treason??

"What's next, criticizing the President = treason??" No, that's not next, because the Left passed that milepost about 2 years ago. What's next is "trying to arrange for your own country to lose a war = treason". Your move, Jack.

Yes, everybody who disagrees with Jack the Lad and his "conservative" mindset please keep your own opinions and your dissention to yourself. Do not form your own opinions about things in this country. Wait, be patient. Our president will pop up in another couple of days with the very latest opinions, and then we can move forward. Don't you opinionated people realize that dissention ended when Clinton left office? By the way, I heard a snippet of El FlushBowl ranting about why he can't question the patriotism of those liberals who have this supposed "loser" mentality. I suppose those of you (silly me - it has been fed to you already) on the right whole-heartedly agree with this, right? Patriotism seems to be such a solid talking point among the righties. Do you staunch patriots on the right have any problems with a bunch of conservative talking heads who never served a day in their lives - even in times of peace - question the patriotism of a party full of people who not only volunteered to serve in the armed forces, but some of whom even marched into battle? How hypocritical in my opinion....If that is what you consider Patriotism in this day and age, no wonder we have 60% or better of the country in dissention right now.

Actually, patriotism hasn't been anywhere near a big enough talking point on the right. I understand the conservatives in Australia aren't hesitating to play the questioning-the-patriotism-card, and it is working out quite well for them politically.
Do those of you on the left realize that we (the President, especially) have been holding back, and biting our tongues?

What do you think would happen if we stopped doing so? Would we get a nasty editorial from the New York Times about how mean we are? We already have that. I think speaking truth to power about patriotism is a winning political strategy. But then, speaking truth to power always is. If the left does not fear that we will start doing this, they should.

Well then, 65% of this nations citizens are 'unpatriotic traitors' then. That's the percentage of Americans that oppose the war now by the way.

Of course we all know who the real unAmerican traitors are; the righty wingnuts who hate the democratic principles of freedom and liberty upon which this nation was founded. You bunch of neo-neanderthalic dolts would willingly propel this nation headlong into totalitarianism, with a touch of theocratic dogma thrown in to boot. You are truly disgraceful.

Jack, I misjudged you! Welcome to my side. I say to NBS and anyone else who wishes to unleash the Patriotic card upon the liberals, go for it. How Patriotic is it for our own troops to be in harm's way, day in and day out, in the middle of an outbreaking civil war in a country that America chose to unleash hell on, all the while our own borders are so porous that it has recently been reported that maybe, just maybe, a few people of middle eastern origin (oops - ter'rists, wingnuts, go hide beneath your beds) made it through from Mexico into the United States? "Fight 'em thar so we don't have ta fight 'em here!" Have you ever pulled your collective heads out of the president's ass long enough to consider this as possibly a stratgic play on their part? The U.S. stretched thin, bogged down in a quagmire of our own making, all of our chips on that so-called blooming democracy (trust me, I'm sort of sneering), all the while the "ter'rists" see an opportunity to rush the quarterback again. If the right is so Patriotic, then they better be more worried about these sudden rash of further "attempts" made on our country, and protect our own people over here. Iraq has had two years now "to stand up so we can stand down." Would you walk five miles if someone offered you a ride? Of course not. A periodical drawback of troops (not cutting and running like your talking points memo tells you to call it) would sort of force the Iraqi government to begin standing up on it's own. That's Patriotism, my man, getting those braves soldiers out of harm's way in a part of the world that has been hell bent on destroying itself for 5,000 years. Do you think that when we finally, oh, in about 30 years, complete this mission, those people will place flowers in each others hair and dance circles in the streets? No way, man. They will resume the fighting and the destroying of Halliburton's freshly built towns all over again. Remember "Mission Accomplished?" Redeploy these troops where they can be all that they can be, and not just a 130,000 man and woman police force for a fledgling nation who had a chance at democracy and may now choose a loosely based three-state republic. Get them out, put them where they need to be, guarding all these people here, dissenting opinions or not.

Sorry to single you out, Jack the lad, I obviously did not realize that your signature is below the post and not above it. My ire, besides at NBS, is aimed at silly little comments and name-callings from posters like Dr. Mabuse. I get so damned tired of this "you don't agree with our beloved Preznut, you're a traitor, you're a left-wing whacko, you're not patriotic, etc, etc...." If El Flushbowl or Sean Crammity ever went off the air, all you would hear across the land is silence, because there would be no more dissention towards the left and no more talking points. I bet they shudder to think.

For those of us who believe history holds valuable lessons, there is instruction to be had from the experience of other great powers. In the particular case of the American Republic it is important to consider the history of other republics. Not the least of these examples is the demise of the ancient Roman Republic and its transition to the Roman Empire.

That history is well known. The civil wars of the mid-first century BC led to the acquisition of dictatorial power by Julius Caesar lasting from about 49 BC until his assassination on the Ides of March 44 BC. Further unrest if not chaos ensued until, in 27 BC, Caesar’s adopted son Octavianus became the first Roman emperor as the first Augustus.

So much for the dates and names. The question is how Augustus became emperor. How did he go about finally ending a republic founded in 510 BC?

First, “he took steps to neutralize the army as a political force.” Of course, in a republic that would be a good thing, because in republican Rome the armies as political forces had helped bring about the demise of the Republic. But in Augustus’s case he achieved his objective by making the army his instrument. Control of the army was control of state power.

Second, he took control of the system of laws and justice. Little could happen with the magistrates and judges that did not meet his approval and conform to his policies. To control the legal system was to control the entire nation.

And, third, like his adoptive father Caesar, Augustus was “imaginative and innovative in his exploitation of religious sentiments.” Augustus understood that the integration of the state with religion was the key to control of the nation’s culture.

The army, the courts, and religion. The keys to the creation of the Roman Empire.

In 21st century America the current government (the presidency and Congress of one party) has taken control not only of defense and military policy, but also military operations. No other administration, including that of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War or Franklin Roosevelt in World War II, has ever done that. The unprecedented imposition of neoconservative ideology on military operations has led directly and inevitably to the debacle in Iraq.

In the last five years we have seen an effort by the current government to control the American judicial system by the appointment of ideologically selected judges. The unprecedented attempt to make the administration of justice the instrument of ideology is incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic whose flag we salute.

And, of course, the Republican party has been imaginative and innovative in its exploitation of religious sentiments. The unprecedented submission of social policy, and foreign policy in the Middle East, to religious fundamentalists violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and has weakened America in the world.

The army, the courts, and religion. The keys to the creation of the American Empire.

Lee: I defy you to find any example of "name-calling" in either of my two previous posts. I do not name-call; it is a bad habit for a writer. The supposed quote in your last post is pure fantasy on your part, and while I appreciate your generosity in writing my own arguments for me, I assure you that I am quite capable of doing my own lifting in that regard. I would point out, however, that your own post employs terms like "El Flushbowl" and "Sean Crammity", and your dear friend Jack uses the terms "neo-neanderthalic dolts" and "righty wingnuts", all of which DO qualify as name-calling, though maybe not in the society you are accustomed to. This style of writing was best described as "impotent rage, that wishes that words were brass knuckles."

I just saw Dr. Mabuse's blog. It seems that he is a stay at home lay about with alot of free time on his hands. I am willing to wager that he spends a copious amount of his ample free time watching Fox 'news', saying amen to O'Reilly, Hannity & co., whilst the rest of us lead productive live working, earning a living and paying taxes. At least Dr. Mabuse doesn't have to worry about health insurance like we Americans do; Canada's universal health care has seen to that. Dr. Mabuse benefits from the socialists; imagine that!

"What's next, criticizing the President = treason??" No, that's not next, because the Left passed that milepost about 2 years ago. What's next is "trying to arrange for your own country to lose a war = treason". Your move, Jack.

Dr. Mabuse: Your earlier post of equating that since some in our party passed a milepost of criticizing the president as being equal to treason, reads to me - even in your self-complemented eloquent writing - as stating that all on the left are treasonous. That is not name-calling? I am treasonous for being in a party more aligned with my beliefs? If that is the de facto case in point, that because I align with a party, then I must assume all of their beliefs step for step, then I guess I can accuse you of name-calling because it seems that your conservative party enjoys to practice that line of attack quite often. It amazes me, that because of Rush Limbaugh (no more name-calling, then) that conservatives and republicans have been referring to the media outlets in this nation as the "drive-by media," a negative connotation. If that be the case, and they are so despicable, then why do republicans and conservatives alike spend so much face-time sharing conversations and interviews with them. If they do so much damage to the existing political landscape, then why not avoid them altogether. Apparently, and by this same standard that I have deduced from your equation in your post, those in the "drive-by media" such as Bill O'reilly and Sean Hannity, as doing more damage, and telling more lies about this administration and are thus "treasonous."

Touch of Gray - you would lose that bet, starting with the fact that you don't have my sex right.

Make that 'Lay about freeloader'. Gotta love that socialized medicine!

Dr. Mabuse: typical that even having your sex wrong is a stand-offish thing with you. How would Touch of Gray have any clue of your gender when you use an asexual epithet? Unless you are a Frank, or a Tom, or an Angie, then just about any other name has a 50/50 shot of going either way. My guess would be that he (or she, for that matter), as well as I and others on our side of the fence, just assumed that you were a male conservative because we are not used to arguing right-wing talking points with the conservative women. Most of these Christian conservative republicans normally have the muzzle on their spouses and have them chained either to the kitchen sink or the bedpost.

Lee, you have it wrong. We Christian conservative women are actually handcuffed to the bedpost...and it's voluntary. Don't you know that we Republicans have much better sex lives than the Democrats? That little secret was revealed on a primetime television special a year or so ago.

Oh, yeah, now I do remember. You are part of the party that only "preaches" abstinence, good christian values, faith-based this and that. I find it very interesting that behind all of that rhetoric are all of the stories that have been reported over the last few years of all the "christians" and the conservatives and those in the faith-based community being indicted or convicted of sexual crimes and other misconducts. Sort of sends the wrong message to all of us pagan liberals, doesn't it, to have a president and a first lady who will so adamantly talk the talk and then have a party full of people who can't walk the walk? Most likely it's the fault of that damned old "drive-by media" again doing their jobs and not white-washing the news to suit a certain party.

I guess this blog petered out. As a catholic liberal male, who last responded to a "supposed" christian conservative female who evidently liked being handcuffed to beds and such....I guess as the dominant male, I win. To all my conservative counterparts - keep your chins up - we liberals need something to swing at in November, and it will be a 1980's style Mike Tyson uppercut, coming like a train-wreck. Talk your talk, play your games, maybe even try to swiftboat a few of our candidates. If nothing else fails, try cheap 12 year old pre-teen tactics, like in the past. But as Sammy Hagar and the immortal Van Halen sang some many years ago (how appropriate), "Dream another dream, this dream is over." As for Jack the Lad and my other new-found friends, see you in late November when we vote these (no name-calling please, Dr. Mabuse's - the female-sex-fiend-who-likes being chained to the bed and force-fed conservative talking points-kind-of-girl advise) "republicans" out of office, we can slowly, yet surely return to a life we have known, and one which the world was comfortable with (including most Americans).

By the way, did anyone notice that the tide is turning, even on Fox News (I could have said Faux News, but again Dr. Mabuse may be offended), that even their fair maven Ann Coulter (no name-calling) was stunned in an interview last night? She was begging Sean Hannity (no name-calling, Dr. Mabuse) to bail her out from her failed argument, and then just kept repeating, "I guess I can leave now." I see great things for the future of this country, great liberal-leaning things. All of those repressed (hand-cuffed to the bedpost closet conservatives) can hold those thank you's until much later. We on the left understand the deprogramming methods of brain-washing take time, and we have been patient since the great screwing-up of 1994.

I'm not sure if it petered out as much as people had other things to do on a Friday night. But in any event, people, please stop emailing me and asking for English Teacher's digits! I don't have them!