I like saying 'Soundbite! Soundbite!' over talking points. I know both parties use talking points but Democratic positions are far less dependent on because Demcocratic policies are popular.

Would love to see him cream mean jean, but I hear Vic Wilson is planning to mount another challenge.

He could always run for senate against Voinovich in 2010. I'd love to have him in the senate.

Let's credit the first person to point out the absurdity of warring against the tactic of terrorism.

In his Oct. 28, 2003 speech, Zbigniew Brzezinski said the following:

I think it is important to ask ourselves as citizens, not as Democrats attacking the administration, but as citizens, whether a world power can really provide global leadership on the basis of fear and anxiety? Can it really mobilize support and particularly the support of friends when we tell them that if you are not with us you are against us?

I think that calls for serious debate in America about the role of America in the world, and I do not believe that that serious debate is satisfied simply by a very abstract, vague and quasi-theological definition of the war on terrorism as the central preoccupation of the United States in today's world. That definition of the challenge in my view simply narrows down and over-simplifies a complex and varied set of challenges that needs to be addressed on a broad front.

It deals with abstractions. It theologizes the challenge. It doesn't point directly at the problem. It talks about a broad phenomenon, terrorism, as the enemy overlooking the fact that terrorism is a technique for killing people. That doesn't tell us who the enemy is. It's as if we said that World War II was not against the Nazis but against blitzkrieg. We need to ask who is the enemy, and the enemies are terrorists.

But not in an abstract, theologically-defined fashion, people, to quote again our highest spokesmen, "people who hate things, whereas we love things" -- literally. Not to mention the fact that of course terrorists hate freedom. I think they do hate. But believe me, I don't think they sit there abstractly hating freedom. They hate some of us. They hate some countries. They hate some particular targets. But it's a lot more concrete than these vague quasi-theological formulations....

The speech is worth reading in its entirety.

aren't pondering the question

asked last night  "Do you believe in such a thing called the GWOT?"

Mathews can be good when he wants to. I don't know why he doesn't want to more often.

This is their talking point which is really dumb and thinks their audience is dumb:

"If we are not in Iraq those 5% of insurgents that are Al Queda will go to America or Europe to fight US or Westerners.  Thus it is better for them to wreak havoc in Iraq than in the US."

Thus I think the response should be --- it is dumb to think that 500 or so al queda in Iraq will go to US if they are not in Iraq--because if they come here they will be absolutely be crushed.

911 would have happened whether we were in Iraq or not because George Bush neglected to address the August 6 PDB and neglected to listen to Richard Clarke who wanted to aggressively dealt with them and neglected to revenge Cole when it became absolutely clear that the Taliban and Al Queda were behind Cole as Clinton have advised.

Opinions on the language used to describe the terrorist conflict in which the U.S. engaged is far less important than the truth about U.S. complicity in starting the conflict.

Last night's debate among the Democratic presidential candidates brought home the urgent need for all candidates of both parties and the American people themselves to acknowledge the U.S. role in sowing the seeds of global terrorism by its actions in the Middle East.

The facts are undisputed:

1. The U.S. played a major role with Britain in toppling Iran's democratically-elected leader Mossadegh back in the 50's after he nationalized the oil industry to keep Western oil interests from hogging the profits. The U.S. helped wreck Iran's nascent democracy by then installing the oppressive Shah of Iran. In reaction, Islamic fundamentalists took over the country and rule there until this day. The Bush/Cheney administration's transparent effort to blame Iran for its problems in the Middle East stem from U.S. intervention there more than 60 years ago to secure control over its oil assets.

2. The U.S. played a major role in starting the al Qaeda movement. It did so by supporting the Middle East dictators in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere whose denial of their citizens' political and economic rights led to the formation of the forerunners of the al Qaeda movement. al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11 2001 because it is propping up these dictators and their oppressive rule in order to get cheap oil.

3. The U.S. literally paid for Osama bin Laden's followers to go to Afghanistan to fight off the Soviet invasion as proxies for U.S. forces that the U.S. did not wish to commit. It trained them and then left them in the snow after THEY repulsed the Soviets. This so embittered bin Laden, according to published reports, that he turned against his former U.S. benefactors because of their actions in Afghanistan, in particular, and the Middle East in general. In other words, the U.S. CREATED the conditions that led to the formation of al Qaeda.

4. The U.S. literally paid and equipped Saddam Hussein to attack Iran once the bitter fruits of U.S. toppling of Iran's democratically elected president came home to roost and Iran's anti-U.S. policies became strident.

5. As soon as the U.S. invaded Iraq, it privatized Iraq's state-owned economic assets so that Western oil interests could get control of Iraqi oil. It set up the Maliki government so that it could pretend to have the legitimacy to sign the oil agreements that confer control of Iraqi oil profits to Western oil interests.

All of these facts are well-known and well-documented. Only the American people have been prevented by pandering politicians from knowing how complicit the U.S. has been in creating the conflagration that started in the Middle East and is now spreading throughout the world.

It is a travesty that intelligent people like Obama and Clinton and the rest of the Democratic candidates can not bring themselves to acknowledge these facts and build foreign policy platforms around nonviolent ways to put out the flames of the conflicts that the U.S. has ignited in the Middle East.

Bottom line: whether you call it a "Global War on Terror" or anything else, the U.S. bears the primary responsibility for starting and perpetuating it. That American lives and countless Iraqi civilian lives have been lost because cowardly American politicians refuse to tell the truth to the American people is a national tragedy.

Worse still, American lives are being lost in this country every day because politicians are siphoning off nearly $600 billion a year of American taxpayer dollars from worthy programs like universal health care to support military interventions abroad that create more conflicts and kill more people.

How long is this national nightmare going to continue?

How much time do we have to spend trying to figure out what language to use to describe a conflict created and perpetuated by the U.S. government and politicians like those we heard debate national security last night?

... on that? I caught my man Edwards, and while he was not called and asked why not, he did raise the issue of how the "war on terror" mindset predisposes us to limit our options ... the line on needing to use tools other than bombs to accomplish what we want.

Kucinich, Gravel, Edwards and who else? Has someone clipped that segment out somewhere?

... should have been more aware of the GWOT debate and not made it a simple 'show of hands' answer. The question was "Do you believe there is a GWOT?" not, "Do you believe the term GWOT is appropriate?"

While I give Edwards credit for not raising his hand, I do not fault the rest of the candidates for raising their hands, for terrorism is a threat that is present across the globe, and all of the candidates agree that it must be confronted and dealt with. I wish there had been follow up questions about the term, but maybe that is too much to ask.

I thought many of the questions were inappropriately framed, and in a debate where each candidate gets a minute per topic, no one could get very deep into anything.

I would just remind everyone that, according to the Constitution, we are not at war with anyone, because the Congress hasn't declared 'War', as only Congress can.  It's all just rhetoric, and is used in a manner to keep the term, thus the implied action, in the public mind, with the intent of de-sensitizing the public to the word, thus the action.  When used for other purposes, such as the 'war on drugs', or the 'war on cancer', or the 'war on poverty' (/snide comment here!), etc, war seems like a good thing.

BUT IT'S NOT!