Jim

*groan*

Why use the inapt term "murder" to justify letting this guy continue to breath? Yes, I will feel better when this "man" is no longer breathing. Do you want to rehabilitate him and let him loose some day? Here's a better reason for the death penalty: He deserves to to die. Also, I like the idea that there are some lines you do not cross. If you do, you forfeit all rights, including the right to continue. I would reserve this justice for cases with iron clad proof where the circumstances are especially heinous. This looks like such a case.

Set aside Roe for a moment - which these states would clearly like to do - and assume that the state is constitutionally entitled to view the fetus as a person with its own legal rights. Many divorce decrees control the ability of parents to remove children from the state. The state has its own interest in protecting children.

If competent and guilty, Kevin Underwood deserves death.

The Duke Lacrosse rape case.

It strikes me as per se racist to prejudge this case unless a person was there or knew the players or alleged vicitim. Although inevitable, it sickens me to see this tragedy used for political agendas and ratings. Why would anyone take a position as to guilt, unless they were members of the jury?

I can't tell if you are being critical of the USSR's decision to construct nuclear missile installations within ninety miles of Florida or of JFK's response?

Did I say it was good news?

No idea. The details are probably going to be hashed out in closed congressional hearings.

Of course we should do what is in the national interest and do everything possible to protect the troops. What did I say to the contrary?

I don't know what to believe. Myers was pretty credible this morning on the point. What I'd like to see are the specifics. For example, it is far too easy to claim "micromanagement" especially if there is an ego clash. I'd like to hear at least one specific example where Rumsfeld "micromanaged" an operation to the detriment of the troops.

If these men put their personal careers over the lives of the soldiers when they were in the service, I do not know why I should listen to them now.

Ahmadinejad has called the holocaust a "myth." I suppose Will was being a little overboard in that Ahmadinejad has "only" said Israel should be wiped off the map, not all Jews.

True although they appear willing to take at least some risks and are giving themselves little room to crawdad (Okie slang for backpeddling). The crowds that celebrated this "atomic miracle" were not joyous about a national public works project. George Will made some good points this morning. He was optomistic about the young demographic nature of Iran. At the same time, he referred to Ahmadinejad as a holocaust denier who has pledged to complete the holocaust.

I thought you were making the point that it was less likely that Iran wanted nuclear weapons given that they genuinely might want to acquire peaceful nuclear technologies albeit at considerable cost but did not want that peaceful investment held hostage by Russia? However, if we put ourselves in Iran's position, it is a no-brainer that they would want nuclear weapons. Israel has them and it would give Iran the muscle to match the rhetoric. I've now used more words to make the same point which seems kind of unnecessary but I do not want to be accused of not adding to the discussion.

If I were Iran, I'd want nukes.

It was certainly possible to raise concerns without using "contemptuous words."

Excellent points. I'm not sure how unprecedented this development is in a historical time frame. Look at this section from one of my new favorite books, V. Hanson's, Carnage & Culture, p. 443: Hanson continues to give several historical examples of even successful military leaders being pilloried (and in one case executed) by critics in Western cultures. He ultimately concludes that such dissent and self-critique is on balance a strength from a purely military POV. While we are accustomed to civilian audit and critique of the military, I am not immediately aware of a precedent for a retired US general making devastating comments on civilian leadership in the midst of a war. (I suspect I would find some of a soon-to-be retired MacARthur re Truman if I had googled deeply enough.) Still, we did not hear if Patton thought Eisenhower a fool for letting Montgomery run with Operation Market Garden. If Patton had been canned for slapping the soldier, it is unimaginable that he would have gone to the press while the war was still being fought. I have to wonder what reception would have been accorded a general who retired and went to the press in 1944 to decry the infamous footbags which sheered off so many paratroopers' legs leaving them without weapons the night before D-Day. Even the most brilliant generals (e.g. Robert Lee) have their detractors in the service (e.g. George Pickett). Correct me if I'm wrong but your point seems to be that military men know this kind of history and probably would not come forward while the war was still being fought unless Rumsfeld was creating problems of almost historic proportions. Perhaps so. I'll wait to judge this issue until I see the specifics of the charges being made by these Generals.

I'm going to have to know more before forming an opinion. You have to hunt but you can find opposing views of generals in the MSM: http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/04152006/news/97900.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/16/wus16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/16/ixworld.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/16/wus16.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/16/ixworld.html http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200604130743.asp All the same, this is a concerning development. I'd like to hear the detailed specifics of the complaints, not just that they thought Rummy was arrogant.

Lol. We need a "wild ass conspiracy" topic to go with metaphysics & pseudoscience.

Could you list the most compelling evidence?

I'm not resolute in going to war. I have no idea whether a war would be effective in eliminating the threat or how long Iran will take to get nukes. I still do not know what, in particular, you find problematic with the question. When you say "it's not just a front to get nukes," you seem to concede that it is at least partially a front to get nukes. I frankly do not care if they have dual motivations since the relevant question is whether, in fact, Iran intends to end up with nukes. Of course they do. Well, yeah, but the US and Israel have nukes and haven't blown up the world yet, have they? The US and Israel are not theocracies. We need to keep talking so long as the talk is a result of careful thought about what is in the national interest.