PLAME

According to BushBots, Plame wasn't outed because she wasn't covert to begin with, so I'd like them to explain this bit of news:

Intel: A Writer's Blocked

Newsweek
Jan. 15, 2007 issue

Plame recently hired a lawyer to challenge the CIA Publications Review Board, which must clear writings by former employees. The panel refused Plame permission to even mention that she worked for the CIA because she served as a "nonofficial cover" officer (or NOC) posing as a private businesswoman

RELIGIOUS TESTS, PART TWO

I have previously posted defenses of the "no religious test" clause of Article VI of the Constitution, all from Part One of The Debates. Here are a few from Part Two.

Virginia Convention
June 1788
The Debate, Part Two, pp. 752-53

Zachariah Johnson, "of the Middle Rank," Favors Ratification Without Previous Amemdments
June 25, 1788

We are also told, that religion is not secured - that religious tests are not required. - You will find that the exclusion of tests, will strongly tend to establish religious freedom. If tests were required - and if the Church of England or any other were established, I might be excluded from any office under the Government, because my conscience might not permit me to take the test required. The diversity of opinions and variety of sects in the United States, have justly been reckoned a great security with respect to religious liberty.

North Carolina Convention
July 1788
The Debate, Part Two, pp. 902-907

Henry Abbot and James Iredell Debate the Ban on Religious Tests: Could Not the Pope Be President?
July 30, 1788

Mr. Iredell— ... I did not expect any objection to this particular regulation, which in my opinion, is calculated to prevent evils the most pernicious consequences to society. ... Under the colour of religious tests the utmost cruelties have been exercised. ... The consequence of intolerant spirit has been, that each church has in turn set if up against every other, and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably; that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society.

[SNIP]

This article is calculated to secure universal relgious liberty, by putting all sects on a level, the only way to prevent persecution.

North Carolina Convention
July 1788
The Debate, Part Two, pp. 909-909

Rev. David Caldwell and Samuel Spencer Continue the Debate on Religious Toleration
July 30, 1788

Mr. Spencer was an advocate for securing every unalienable right, and that of worshipping God according to the dictates of conscience in particular. He therefore thought that no one particular religion should be established. Religious tests, said he, have been the foundation of persecutions in all countries. ... But in this case as there is not a religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connexion with temporal authority, and no kind of oppression can take place.

THE STOCK MARKET, THE GOP AND THE DEMS

Despite all the blather about Dems being bad for capitalism, the stock market has done much better under Dem Presidents. This is from Yahoo Finance:


Despite the behavior of the market during the last Presidential election, over longer periods of time, the stock market has done significantly better under Democratic administrations.

The accompanying chart shows stock returns under each occupant of the White House since the beginning of Harry Truman's second term. I have calculated the return from the end of the November election, since stocks will react to the policies of the incoming administration when it is elected, not when it takes office.

President	Party	Date	Months in Office	Annualized Stock Return
Truman	D	11/48-10/52	48	18.28%
Eisenhower	R	11/52-10/60	96	14.96%
Kennedy	D	11/60-10/63	36	15.15%
Johnson	D	11/63-10/68	60	10.39%
Nixon	R	11/68-7/74	69	-1.32%
Ford	R	8/74-10/76	27	17.21%
Carter	D	11/76-10/80	48	11.04%
Reagan	R	11/80-10/88	96	15.18%
Bush	R	11/88-10/92	48	14.44%
Clinton	D	11/92-10/00	96	19%
Bush, G.W.	R	11/00-2/06	63	-0.92%
Average from 1948 to Feb. 2006		Democrat	42.8%	15.26%
		Republican	57.2%	9.53%
		Overall	100%	11.95%

The table tells the story. Since 1948, Republican Administrations have controlled the White House 57.2 percent of the time. But during the period that the GOP was in office, stock returns have averaged only 9.53 percent per year, while under Democratic administrations, stocks returned 15.25 percent per year, more than five percentage points higher.

RADIO TIDBITS

I caught some of Monica Crowley's radio show and she was going on and on about the Clintons. Crowley made an ominous reference to some person Hilary has "put on a milk carton" but I didn't hear her say who that was.

I learned a little more about wingnut social connections: Jerry Doyle is a friend of Lee Habib, the former executive produce of War Whore Ingraham's radio show. Ingrham used to have a picture of herself with Habib but I guess he got the boot. Now it's some guy named Matt Fox.

SAVE THE SPOCKO!

Mike Stark is organizing a blogswarm and I think I should get involved. Here are the basics, click on the post title for more info.

Background:

Spocko is a blogger who has done admirable work against wingnuttery by alerting national advertisers to the crap that's put on the air by KFSO. Here's just a couple of example mp3 clips:

"the day will come when unpleasant things are going to happen to a bunch of stupid liberals. It’s going to be amusing to watch, [cohosts laughter] very amusing to watch."


"a bull’s-eye painted on her big wide laughing eyes."


Mike Stark's Plan:

The mission is this. Spocko’s ISP, 1&1, has been served a cease and desist letter by ABC. Cowardly or otherwise, they chose to avoid conflict by shutting Spocko’s site down rather than defending the electronic rights of their subscriber. As a result, this audio is no longer available for download from Spocko’s blog and ABC/Disney probably think they’ve won a significant battle. We won’t stand for their bullying and intimidation. If you host a blog, please download each of the clips I’ve linked to in this post and host them at your site.

OUR SNAIL MAIL

ThinkProgress notes that Pres. Fredo reserves the right to open our mail, sort of when he feels like it. Even my local paper carried an article about this:


GOP senator wants explanation of warrantless-mail-search claim
(FROM: New York Daily News)
Tucson Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona Published: 01.05.2007

WASHINGTON — The Republican sponsor of a postal reform bill called Thursday on President Bush to explain why he used it to claim he can open domestic mail without a search warrant.

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine questioned Bush's controversial Dec. 20 "signing statement" in which he stated if there were an emergency he wouldn't need a warrant to open letters. The bill he signed into law that day, co-sponsored by Collins, requires search warrants for mail.

An assistant attorney general, though, wrote in a 2005 letter to Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., that warrantless mail searches "would be highly unusual." And, "even then you'd have to go to a judge after the fact and explain what you've done," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told Flake during an April 2005 House Judiciary Committee hearing.

This seems to have been going on for some time:

Homeland Security opening private mail
Retired professor confused, angered when letter from abroad is opened
By Brock N. Meeks
Chief Washington correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 5:55 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2006


WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.

Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.

The letter comes from a retired Filipino history professor; Goodman declined to identify her. And although the Philippines is on the U.S. government’s radar screen as a potential spawning ground for Muslim-related terrorism, Goodman said his friend is a devout Catholic and not given to supporting such causes.

MORE ON RELIGIOUS TESTS

Some time ago, I went through The Debates on the Constitution and scanned in portions that are relevant to the wingnut's claim that America is a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles. They are wrong, of course, but it's good to get some backup in case one of them blathers about "original intent."

Here are some snippets of articles and letters AGAINST the view that America was meant to be a formally Christian nation as the wingnuts suggest. I made a earlier post about one of the articles, here are the restfrom Part One:

AN EXAMINATION INTO THE LEADING PRINCIPLES OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
“A Citizen of America” [Noah Webster]
Philadelphia, Oct. 17, 1787

FROM: The Debates, Part One, pp. 154-155

But what is tyranny? Or how can a free people be deprived of their liberties? Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liber­ties, while they retain in their own hands, a power superior to any other power in the state. This position leads me directly to enquire, in what consists the power of a nation or of an order of men?
In some nations, legislators have derived much of their power from the influence of religion, or from that implicit belief which an ignorant and superstitious people entertain of the gods, and their interposition in every transaction of life. The Roman senate sometimes availed themselves of this en­gine to carry their decrees and maintain their authority. This was particularly the case, under the aristocracy which suc­ceeded the abolition of the monarchy. The augurs and priests were taken wholly from patrician families. They constituted a distinct order of men—had power to negative any law of the people, by declaring that it was passed during the taking of the auspices. This influence derived from the authority of opinion, was less perceptible, but as tyrannical as a military force. The same influence constitutes, at this day, a principal support of several governments on the Eastern continent, and perhaps in South America. But in North America, by a singular concurrence of circumstances, the possibility of es­tablishing this influence, as a pillar of government, is totally precluded.


"NO RELIGIOUS TEST SHALL EVER BE REQUIRED"
"A Landholder" [Oliver Ellsworth] VII
Connecticut Courant (Hartford), December 17, 1787
FROM The Debates, Part One, pp. 521-524

Some very worthy persons, who have not had great advantages for information, have objected against that clause in the constitution, which provides, that no religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. They have been afraid that this clause is unfavourable to religion. But, my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution, and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty.

[SNIP]
From this account of test-laws, there arises an avourable presumption against them. But if we consider nature of them and the effects which they are calculated to prouce, we shall find that they are useless, tyrannical, and peculiarly unfit for the people of this country.

[SNIP]

But to come to the true principle, by which this question ought to be determined: ... Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. ... I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being.


"OUR SECURITY MUST REST IN OUR FREQUENTLY REFERRING BACK TO THE PEOPLE"

SAMUEL PARSONS TO WILLIAM CUSHING
Middleton, Connecticut
January 11, 1788

From The Debates, Part One, p. 753

[SNIP]
-the Want of Power to establish religious Tests is a grievance in the Minds of some; in addition to the very many & conclusive Arguments against religious Tests—I am fully convinced of the Expediency of incerting the exclusive Clause lest in future Time by Construction such Right may be supposd to exist, and under the Influence of the enthusiasm which has impeld men to the greatest Absurdities, we may in future hang Witches or establish such Tests as would disgrace humane Nature

The Reverend Daniel Shute and
Colonel William Jones on Religious Tests
and Christian Belief
January 31, 1788

From The Debates, Part One, pp. 919-20

SHUTE: To establish a religious test as a qualification for offices in proposed Federal Constitution, appears to me, sir, would attended with injurious consequences to some individuals, and with no advantage to the whole.

Far from limiting my charity and confidence to men of own denomination in religion, I suppose, and I believe, that there are worthy characters among men of every denomination—among the Quakers—the Baptists—Church of England—the Papists—and even among who have no other guide, in the way to virtue and heaven than the dictates of natural religion.

I must therefore think, sir, that the proposed plan of government, in this particular, is wisely constructed: That as have an equal claim to the blessings of the government which they live, and which they support, so none should excluded from them for being of any particular denomination in religion.

Isaac Backus on Religion and the State,
Slavery, and Nobility
February 4, 1788

From The Debates, Part One, pp. 931-33

Rev. Mr. BACKUS. ... And I shall begin with the exclusion of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it, but nothing is more evident, both in reason, and in the holy scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals; and therefore no man or men can impose any religious test, without invading the essential prerogatives of Lord Jesus Christ.

[SNIP]

And let the history of all nations searched, from that day to this, and it will appear that the posing of religious tests hath been the greatest engine of tyranny in the world.

GREAT POST BY GREENWALD

Glenn Greenwald of Unclaimed Territory has been doing a superb job exposing wingnuttery and his recent post about the meretricious attacks on the AP deserves to be widely read.

He also has an excellent review article in The American Conservative on the lying wingnut media whores.

RADIO TIDBITS

Fats implied that media bias is responsible for the lack of coverage about a new study relating exercise to incidence of breast cancer. Because the researchers found that "housework" reduces the risk in pre-menopausal women, Fats implied that fear of feminists (or some such) kept the media from widely reporting the finding.


In fact, the study was about exercise and found:

"The results suggest moderate physical activity may be important in reducing breast cancer risk in European women. "

Dr Lesley Walker, Cancer Research UK's director of cancer information, said: "We already know women who keep a healthy weight are less likely to develop breast cancer. This study suggests that being physically active may help reduce the risk and that something as simple as doing the housework can help."

(SOURCE: Lexis-Nexis, Hull Daily Mail, January 1, 2007)

Jerry Doyle mentioned that a Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans think the coverage of the Iraq War has been inaccurate:

Among this group, the majority says the inaccuracy is in the direction of presenting too negative a picture. Two-thirds of Republicans say the media's portrayal of the situation in Iraq is biased toward being too negative. The majority of Democrats say news coverage of Iraq is generally accurate.

After watching an ad, Gallup lets one get access to their premium content, so here's what I found:

Gallup asked the people who claimed the coverage was inaccurate exactly how it was inaccurate:

BASED ON 569 ADULTS WHO SAY THE NEWS MEDIA HAVE BEEN PROVIDING AN INACCURATE ACCOUNT OF THE SITUATION IN IRAQ

2006 Dec 18-20

Better than actually is 36%

Worse than actually is 61

No opinion 2

There is a HUGE partisan split among these people based on party affiliation:

Better than it is
DEMS 32%
IND 25%
GOP 5%

Worse than it is

DEMS 8%
IND 29%
GOP 67%


To sum up, 61% of Americans think the coverage is accurate OR makes Iraq look better than it really is, 35% think the coverage makes Iraq look worse than it is. The remaining 4% are either unsure (1%) or have no opinion (3%).

WAR WHORES AT THE AEI

(That's the American Enterprise Institute, one of the major wingnut hives.) AEI just had a conference on how to win the Iraq War, attended by Liebeman and McCain. AEI's basically insane position:


It has been widely reported that the new "way forward" Bush is expected to announce next week will include a substantial surge in US forces, designed to bring stability to violence-torn parts of the country.

Such an increase might allow reconstruction aid to begin to have a real effect in Baghdad and elsewhere, improving the daily life of Iraqis and strengthening the shaky central government, according to an influential report on the subject co-authored by Frederick Kagan, a military historian at American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

"Victory in Iraq is still possible at an acceptable level of effort," says a summary of the AEI study.

(from Christian Science Monitor, January 5, 2007, Friday, Pg. 1, "If Iraq fragments, what's Plan B?", Peter Grier, Staff writer)

Proponents of one prominent surge plan agree. Drawn up under the auspices of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the plan would put four additional Army brigades into Baghdad and two additional Marine regimental combat teams into Sunni-dominated Anbar Province, in an effort to curtail Iraqi violence.

"This is not just a debate about numbers. In the first instance, this is a debate about strategy," said one author of the plan, military historian Frederick Kagan, at a Dec. 14 AEI seminar outlining it. Mr. Kagan has also met with Mr. Bush about what might be achieved by bringing more US military might to Iraq.

It has never been the primary mission of the US military in Iraq to establish security to protect the population, argued Kagan. Since the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the military mission has been to train Iraqis and turn the problem over to them.

For the most part, US counterinsurgency efforts have focused on attacking adversaries. That should change, according to the AEI plan, to defense and economic support of Iraqi civilians.

"You do not focus on the enemy. You focus on the people," said another of the plan's co-authors, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, at the AEI event.

The worst fighting is occurring in mixed Sunni-Shiite Baghdad neighborhoods, according to Kagan. That is where Sunni insurgents are struggling with Shiite militias in tit-for-tat sectarian warfare.

The AEI study identifies 23 such residential districts. With an additional 20,000 troops, the US military could surge into these neighborhoods, clear them of bad guys, and then leave units behind to keep them clear while moving on to the next target.

"You put a protect force in, that lives in the neighborhood.... They use empty houses. They use government buildings, schools that are not being used," said General Keane.

In Anbar, the extra marines would not be enough to allow the US to carry out this approach. Instead, they would focus on preventing insurgents flushed from Baghdad from using Anbar as a base.

(from Christian Science Monitor,December 26, 2006, Pg. 1, "What a 'troop surge' in Iraq might accomplish," Peter Grier Staff writer)



ChicagoDyke attended and took notes, Newberry has a sanity-based analysis.

SIMPLICITY

Perhaps because they have such narrow minds, wingnuts desperately need to believe that there are simple and definitive answers to all our problems. In economics, it's the miracle of Adam Smith's "invisible hand;" in morals, it's Leviticus. In America, this trait has been around for decades and I've tracked down the political history to these two wingnut icons:

Goldwater:

"A lot of my enemies call me simple. The trouble with the so-called liberal today is that he doesn't understand simplicity. The answers to America's problems are simple." Memphis, 1964.

SOURCE: Hofstadter, page 124, paperback edition.

Raygun:

"For many years now, you and I have been shushed like children and told there are no simple answers to the complex problems which are beyond our comprehension. Well, the truth is, there are simple answers, they just are not easy ones." California Gubernatorial Inauguration Speech, (1967-01-05).


Both remarks contain an implicit criticism of the authority of expertise and promote a sort of ignorant populism.

RADIO TIDBITS

Amusing if true: Jerry Doyle was watching the House swearing in ceremonies on CNN and switched over to FOX but switched back because FOX wasn't doing live coverage. Doyle later said that everyone at FOX NEWS must be wearing black arm bands.


Fats Limbaugh responded to Pelosi becoming the Speaker of the House with his tiresome rant about the feminization of America. Are there still that many angry, white, dumbfuck males still out there???

THE REPUBLICAN SAINT-JUST

Yes, I'm talking about Barry Goldwater. From his acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention:

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

ANOTHER MARK LEVIN

Foamer Levin can't stand "activist judges" and on the Jerry Doyle show, I learned Foamer has a supporter, Robert H. Dierker Jr., a sitting Missouri judge who has recently published a book entitled:

The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault

As you might imagine, he dislikes the New Deal and feels that FDR nominated radical liberals to the Supreme Court. This last part nudged me into looking up who FDR did nominate. Here's the list:


Hugo L. Black 1937-71
Stanley F. Reed 1938-57
Felix Frankfurter 1939-62
William O. Douglas 1939-75
Frank Murphy 1940-49
Harlan Fiske Stone 1941-46
James F. Byrnes 1941-42
Robert H. Jackson 1941-54
Wiley B. Rutledge 1943-49

(From Encyclopedia Britannica)

Of these, we can hardly consider Reed, Frankfurter and Jackson to be liberals in the same sense that Douglas was.

RADIO TIDBITS

Last night, I heard a tape-delayed broadcast of the FOX News radio show "Brian and the Judge." Only Judge Napolitano was present and he had a very interesting interview with Courtney Kealy, formerly FOX News' Baghdad correspondent. Despite evident disappointment on the Judge's part, she told him that the situation in Iraq was terrible.

Unfortunately, FOX does not provide transcripts of this show and I could not get the audio clip and make my own transcription. However, I did find that Kealy interviewed Sec. Rice on April 2, 2006 and her questions show how she regarded the situation BEFORE the rise in violence:

QUESTION: Now we're getting to the point where there's a lawlessness, chaos and daily violence among Iraqis. Their lowest death rate among the soldiers in March in the last two years. The death rate among Iraqis in the last six weeks has soared . Death squads, militias, general lawlessness and criminals. Who's to blame for this chaos right now?

QUESTION: The general lawlessness and sectarian violence is clearly coming out of people and cities with commando uniforms. Iraqis on the street are more trusting of the Iraqi soldiers, the army with US backup. And this has really shifted. I've seen soldiers work. I've seen the Iraqi soldiers work. And people are telling me of neighborhoods that won't let these come in were forming their own militias. That's now extreme it's getting. Is there anything besides the formation of a unity government that can stop some of this outrageous violence that's happening right now?

"STRONG ON DEFENSE"

That's a GOP mantra but I wonder how much we really need to spend considering what the rest of the world spends.

Global Security estimates that in 2004, the entire world spent about $950 billion while the U.S. spent about $467 billion. Thus, we accounted for slightly over 49% of the entire world's spending on defense.

In 2005, Global Issues estimates that U.S. spending accounts for about 48% of the world's spending.

There are some differences in figures reported by different organizations but it seems clear that we account for at least 40% of the entire world's spending, even if we ignore Fredo's wars.

Do we really need to spend that much? The neo-cons would say "yes" but they aren't sober analysts of our needs.

PSYCH RESEARCH ON CONSERVATISM

Here's a good Pych Bulletin article on the psychology of conservatism:

Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

Psychological Bulletin
2003, Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375

Our review of the evidence indicates that there is consistent and relatively strong support for the general hypothesis that a specific set of social–cognitive motives are significantly related to political conservatism.

Effect sizes with absolute values of weighted mean rs ranging from .18 to .27 were obtained for variables of uncertainty avoidance; integrative complexity; needs for order, structure, and closure; and fear of threat in general.

Stronger effect sizes were observed for dogmatism, intolerance of ambiguity, openness to experience, mortality salience, and system instability (with weighted mean rs ranging from .32 to .50).

Here's their model:

"DOOM & GLOOM" FAT WHITE GUY

The wingnuts often accuse the Liberals and the Democrats of being too pessimistic about America. I don't know anything a liberal has said can top this prediction for 2007 from Fats Robertson.

Robertson says God told him of ''mass killing'' in U.S. in 2007
By STEVEN G. VEGH, The Virginian-Pilot © January 3, 2007

VIRGINIA BEACH — Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson cited communications with God in predicting Tuesday that horrific terrorism aimed at the United States will result in "mass killing" during the second half of 2007.

"The Lord didn't say nuclear, but I do believe it'll be something like that — that'll be a mass killing, possibly millions of people, major cities injured," Robertson said.

"There will be some very serious terrorist attacks," he said. "The evil people will come after this country, and there's a possibility - not a possibility, a definite certainty - that chaos is going to rule." Robertson did not say where the attacks would occur.

Robertson made his predictions during "The 700 Club" television show, which he hosts from the Christian Broadcasting Network in Virginia Beach.

The locals don't seem to be buying it:

Do you believe Pat Robertson when he cites communications with God in predicting horrific terrorism aimed at the United States during the second half of 2007?


Yes
7.68%

No
85.99%

Undecided
6.32%

Total: 2863 votes

ANOTHER SHAMMITY FACT

(A Shammity fact is something like a FOX NEWS Democrat)

Today, Sean claimed that the top income tax rate when Raygun came into office was 90%. As usual, the facts are otherwise. In 1981, the top rate was 69.125%, assessed on income greater than $215,400. During the next 5 years, the top rate was 50% but the income level increased from $85,600 to $175,250. In 1988, the last year of Raygun's presidency, the top rate was reduced to 28% and began on income over $29,750.


In comparison, during the first two years of Clinton's presidency, the top rate was 31%. Subsequently, the top rate was 39.6% and the income levels rose from $250,000 to $288,350. During the Clinton Administration, almost 21 million new private sector jobs were created. Even if we combine the Raygun and Bush I years, the total is a bit less than 16 million.

THE RUNNER-UP

Gen. Tommy Franks is reported to have said that Douglas Feith was "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth." Last night, I think I found second stupidest: Orson Scott Card. Card was on the Rusty Humphries Show and made these preposterous claims:

1) The Iraq War is the best run of any American war.

2) Pres. Fredo is the greatest President in Card's lifetime.

3) Pres. Fredo is truly a moderate.

SHAMMITY AT IT AGAIN

Nothing's changed about Sean Hannity - he's still lying about Democrats and Liberals. Today he claimed that NOT ONE liberal Democrat had a good thing to say about Saddam's execution and said he looked. Well, he didn't look very hard. Here are the comments from 2 Democratic contenders for the 2008 Presidential election:

GOV. TOM VILSACK (D), IOWA: You know, Chris, I don't think we should look backward. I think the execution of Hussein basically ends a chapter in Iraq, and we need to look forward.

SHOW: FOX NEWS SUNDAY 9:00 AM EST
December 31, 2006 Sunday


HENRY: Okay, now, Senator, you voted for the war in 2002 -- I know you've said you were wrong, it was a mistake. But you said, at the time, quote, "Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace. He is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons." Saddam Hussein is about to be executed; we all know that. Do you think the president at least deserves some credit for getting that part of the job done?
EDWARDS: I think the American military deserves credit for their success in Iraq and for capturing Saddam Hussein, and Saddam Hussein being out of power and being executed is a good thing.
HENRY: Are you concerned that there may be more terrorism directed at the United States, more attacks on U.S. soldiers, after Saddam is executed, though, that that might spark more violence?
EDWARDS: No, I think -- first of all, there's no way to predict what's going to happen. But my gut tells me that it's likely to have a more positive than negative influence.
CNN
SHOW: THE SITUATION ROOM 4:00 PM EST
December 29, 2006 Friday

RADIO TIDBITS

Drudge ended the year with another well-worn wingnut lie, this one about Al Gore claiming he invented the Internet. He didn't.