Yes, 'n' how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind,
The answer is blowin' in the wind.

Kristol, Krauthammer, Kaplan, Peretz, and Perle enemies of Israel? This Forward article says "Israel was safer with Saddam."

The irony here is palpably painful. Bush is so inept and the neocons are so out to lunch that an invasion that was launched, unarguably, in part to protect Israel has increased the danger to it, in addition to all the other horrible things it has done to the United States, Iraq, and the rest of the world. Anyway, here are a few choice quotes:

    * "If I knew then what I know today, I would not have recommended going to war, because Saddam was far less dangerous than I thought," said Haifa University political scientist Amatzia Baram, one of Israel's leading Iraq experts.

    * Saddam's death, Israeli deputy defense minister Ephraim Sneh warned, could lead to "a reinforcement of Iranian influence in Iraq." He said that Iraq had turned into a "volcano of terror" following the war, with "destructive energies" that could spill over into Jordan and Israel.
    * "When you dismantle a system in which there is a despot who controls his people by force, you have chaos," Shin Bet security service director Yuval Diskin said, unaware that the meeting was secretly recorded. "I'm not sure we won't miss Saddam." The tape was later broadcast on Israeli television.
    * "Saddam's regime was preferable -- not only for us but for all the states in the region, except for maybe the Iranians," Hebrew University political scientist and security specialist Eitan Barak said. "Saddam held together a divided, tribal, hostile state of Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds. He was a single man who made all decisions, and he was a rational leader. The moment he was gone, everything fell apart."

So many of these heartless PPs now hold big jobs in our federal government, as though they were leaders instead of sick.  They have taken charge.  They have taken charge of communications and schools, so we may as well be Poland under occupation.

They might have felt that taking our country into an endless war was simply something decisive to do.  What allowed so many PPs to rise so high in corporations, and now in government, is that they are so decisive.  They are going to do something every f*ckin' day and they are not afraid.  Unlike normal people, they are never filled with doubts, for the simple reason that they don't give a f*ck what happens next.  Simply can't.  Do this! Do that! Mobilize the reserves! Privatize public schools! Attack Iraq! Cut health care! Tap everybody's telephone! Cut taxes on the rich! Build a trillion dollar missile shield! F*ck habeas corpus and the Sierra Club and In These Times, and kiss my ass!

There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don't know what can be done to fix it.  This is it: Only nutcases want to be president.  This was true even in high school.  Only clearly disturbed people ran for class president.

Mr. Bush is wrong. And his statements reflect a lack of tolerance for contrary points of view and a narrowness of intellect. Is it necessary to know that the square root of 100 is 10 in order to know and assert that it is not 6? Centuries ago, if an Aztec citizen happened to believe that the practice of human sacrifice was foolish and cruel but his leaders believed that the rising of the sun or the success of crops depended upon such barbaric acts, should he have felt obligated to offer an alternative before heeding his conscience and speaking out? If the President of the United States is convinced beyond all reason and argument that he can conquer a tempest, is it really necessary that "those who refuse to give this plan a chance to work have an obligation to offer an alternative that has a better chance for success"? What if success is unattainable? Or if the endeavor is little more than a fool's errand?