GA/Pat,

First, FoxNews is hardly fair and balanced. This topic has been beat to death and anyone who denies it is fooling themselves. As I have pointed out numerous examples in past postings, this channel is so far right that it simply does not even try to hide it. It is an electronic RNC 24/7 commerical for Republicans.

As for the Sierra Club, a point that is overlooked is WHO is their backer? It's not oil, gas, mineral or developmental interests - it is mainly people who care about the enviroment - something we all should be concerned about. When that angle is examined, their objectivity is clear. This is something that baffles me to no end. It is similar to how labor unions represent people versus how corportations represent the bottom line. The backers of each are two completely different circumstances which the right completely ignores. Just when has an oil, gas, mineral or corporation ever really given a sincere shit about people?!?

I've already explained my use of the terms, "Shrub", "Bushies" et al....I usually don't use "Dumbya"....I have little respect for those in the White House and will continue to show such disrespect...

Have you two ever thought no one answers your questions because they are consistently asked in saracastic manners and then when someone replies you toss around labels such as "idiotic"?

My own opinion as to the ACLU getting involved in the CIA mess, I think they should if the govt compels reporters to answer questions that will chill the US Constitution.

I have answered numerous times about the process of primary politics (how both sides go to their core/base at the start and almost always veer back to the center).

As for Shrub being compared to Nazi's, the Talibat, et al. Jesus, who wrote this play book? Go back and look at the entire 2002 elections. I love how you all on the right ignore your own behavior. Just what party has tried to claim to be the only party of patriotism? The terrible tarring of Max Cleland ring a bell? Just what party has claimed all who dissent are aiding those who are against us? (John Ashcroft said this). I get so tired of the right being so intellectually dishonest.

Not once have I read an honest discounting of Shrub's lies in the run up to the Iraqi war. Not one. No one has discounted ANY of them. (And pick up a copy of Weapons of Mass Deception if you feel they are non-existent).

Go back and read your posts and you'll see who uses hyperbole so apt. For example, "Dean has 400 lefty ideas".....quite the exaggeration.

Now, some questions.....

1) Who has said there has been no postive impact because of Saddam's capture? No one credible that I know of. Dean has pointed out that it has not made American/America safer, which is true. But really, how can anyone equate the loss of a single American to this equation when pointing out that this was an elective war?

2) Name me foreign terrorist events in America PRIOR to 9/11? I can only think of ONE. The rest have been domestic. But more importantly, how MANY have been carried out worldwide against American interests after our Iraqi mission? (I'm not saying they wouldn't have happened without our Iraqi intervention, only that dammit, we took our eyes off the ball. From the start our concentration should have been on bin Laden, the Taliban and al Queda - I think things would have been different for everyone and we would have had a true coaliton to go after these terrorists).

3) I have seen plenty of solutions in regards to terrorism, but little coverage of them. For example, increased security at US chemical plants, better port security and so on. The bad thing is that this current administration's perception of the Middle East is terribly lacking.

Oh, and by the way, the Dept of Homeland Security was originally Joe Lieberman's idea....one that was voted against about 15 times by guess who, yes, Republicans, those grand patriotic only standard bearers......